Binder1.PDF-EPA Water Reuse Guidelines

EPA/625/R-04/108
September 2004
Guidelines for Water Reuse
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Municipal Support Division

Office of Wastewater Management
Office of Water
Washington, DC
Technology Transfer and Support Division

National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
Cincinnati, OH
U.S. Agency for International Development

Washington, DC
Notice
This document was produced by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. under a Cooperative Research
and Development Agreement with the US Environmental Protection Agency. It has been
subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ii
Foreword
In an effort to help meet growing demands being placed information on treatment and disinfection technologies,
on available water supplies, many communities through- emerging chemicals and pathogens of concern, eco-
out the U.S. and the world are turning to water reclama- nomics, user rates and funding alternatives, public in-
tion and reuse. Water reclamation and reuse offer an volvement and acceptance (both successes and fail-
effective means of conserving our limited high-quality ures), research activities and results, and sources of
freshwater supplies while helping to meet the ever grow- further information. It also includes as an updated ma-
ing demands for water. trix of state regulations and guidelines, and a list of state
contacts. This information should be useful to states in
For many years, effluent discharges have been accepted developing water reuse standards, and revising or ex-
as an important source for maintaining minimum stream panding existing regulations. It should also be useful to
flows. The investment in treatment technologies required planners, consulting engineers and others actively in-
to meet restrictive discharge limits has lead an increas- volved in the evaluation, planning, design, operation or
ing number of industries and communities to consider maintenance of water reclamation and reuse facilities.
other uses for their treated wastewater effluents as a
means to recover at least a part of this investment. Benjamin H. Grumbles
Further, as sources of water supplies have become lim- Assistant Administrator for Water U.S. EPA
ited, there has been greater use and acceptance of re-
claimed wastewater effluents as an alternative source Paul Gilman
of water for a wide variety of applications, including land- Assistant Administrator for Research & Development
scape and agricultural irrigation, toilet and urinal flush- U.S. EPA
ing, industrial processing, power plant cooling, wetland
habitat creation, restoration and maintenance, and Jacqueline E. Schafer
groundwater recharge. In some areas of the country, Deputy Assistant Administrator
water reuse and dual water systems with purple pipe Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade
for distribution of reclaimed water have become fully U.S. Agency for International Development
integrated into local water supplies.
The 2004 Guidelines for Water Reuse examines oppor-

tunities for substituting reclaimed water for potable wa-
ter supplies where potable water quality is not required.
It presents and summarizes recommended water reuse
guidelines, along with supporting information, as guid-
ance for the benefit of the water and wastewater utili-
ties and regulatory agencies, particularly in the U.S. The
document updates the 1992 Guidelines document by
incorporating information on water reuse that has been
developed since the 1992 document was issued. This
revised edition also expands coverage of water reuse
issues and practices in other countries. It includes many
new and updated case studies, expanded coverage of
indirect potable reuse and industrial reuse issues, new
iii
iv
Contents
Chapter Page
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Objectives of the Guidelines ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 Water Demands and Reuse .............................................................................................. 1
1.3 Source Substitution .......................................................................................................... 2

1.4 Pollution Abatement ......................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Treatment and Water Quality Considerations ................................................................... 3
1.6 Overview of the Guidelines .............................................................................................. 4
1.7 References ....................................................................................................................... 5
2 TYPES OF REUSE APPLICATIONS ......................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Urban Reuse .................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Reclaimed Water Demand ................................................................................... 8
2.1.2 Reliability and Public Health Protection ............................................................... 9
2.1.3 Design Considerations ....................................................................................... 10
2.1.3.1 Water Reclamation Faciliities ............................................................... 10
2.1.3.2 Distribution System .............................................................................. 10
2.1.4. Using Reclaimed Water for Fire Protection ........................................................ 12
2.2 Industrial Reuse ............................................................................................................. 13
2.2.1 Cooling Water .................................................................................................... 13
2.2.1.1 Once-Through Cooling Water Systems ................................................. 13
2.2.1.2 Recirculating Evaporative Cooling Water Systems ............................... 13
2.2.1.3 Cooling Water Quality Requirements .................................................... 15
2.2.2 Boiler Make-up Water ........................................................................................ 16
2.2.3 Industrial Process Water ................................................................................... 17
2.2.3.1 Pulp and Paper Industry ....................................................................... 17
2.2.3.2 Chemical Industry ................................................................................ 17
2.2.3.3 Textile Industry .................................................................................... 17
2.2.3.4 Petroleum and Coal .............................................................................. 20
2.3 Agricultural Reuse .......................................................................................................... 20
2.3.1 Estimating Agricultural Irrigation Demands ........................................................ 21
2.3.1.1 Evapotranspiration ................................................................................ 21
2.3.1.2 Effective Precipitation, Percolation and Surface Water
Runoff Losses ...................................................................................... 21
2.3.2 Reclaimed Water Quality ................................................................................... 22
2.3.2.1 Salinity ................................................................................................. 23
2.3.2.2 Sodium ................................................................................................. 23
2.3.2.3 Trace Elements .................................................................................... 24
2.3.2.4 Chlorine Residual .................................................................................. 24
2.3.2.5 Nutrients ............................................................................................... 24
2.3.3 Other System Considerations ........................................................................... 26
2.3.3.1 System Reliability ................................................................................ 26
v
Chapter Page
2.3.3.2 Site Use Control ................................................................................... 26
2.3.3.3 Monitoring Requirements ...................................................................... 26
2.3.3.4 Runoff Controls .................................................................................... 26
2.3.3.5 Marketing Incentives ............................................................................ 27
2.3.3.6 Irrigation Equipment .............................................................................. 27
2.4 Environmental and Recreational Reuse .......................................................................... 27
2.4.1 Natural and Man-made Wetlands ....................................................................... 28
2.4.2 Recreational and Aesthetic Impoundments ....................................................... 30
2.4.3 Stream Augmentation ........................................................................................ 30
2.5 Groundwater Recharge ................................................................................................... 31
2.5.1 Methods of Groundwater Recharge ................................................................... 32
2.5.1.1 Surface Spreading ................................................................................ 32
2.5.1.2 Soil-Aquifer Treatment Systems .......................................................... 35
2.5.1.3 Vadose Zone Injection .......................................................................... 37
2.5.1.4 Direct Injection ..................................................................................... 38
2.5.2 Fate of Contaminants in Recharge Systems ..................................................... 38
2.5.2.1 Particulate Matter ................................................................................. 39
2.5.2.2 Dissolved Organic Constituents ........................................................... 39
2.5.2.3 Nitrogen ................................................................................................ 40
2.5.2.4 Microorganisms .................................................................................... 40
2.5.3 Health and Regulatory Considerations ............................................................... 41
2.6 Augmentation of Potable Supplies ................................................................................. 41
2.6.1 Water Quality Objectives for Potable Reuse ..................................................... 42
2.6.2 Surface Water Augmentation for Indirect Potable Reuse ................................... 44
2.6.3 Groundwater Recharge for Indirect Potable Reuse ............................................ 45
2.6.4 Direct Potable Water Reuse .............................................................................. 46
2.7 Case Studies ............................................................................................................. 48
2.7.1 Water Reuse at Reedy Creek Improvement District .......................................... 49
2.7.2 Estimating Potable Water Conserved in Altamonte Springs due
to Reuse ............................................................................................................ 50
2.7.3 How Using Potable Supplies to Supplement Reclaimed Water
Flows can Increase Conservation, Hillsborough County, Florida ....................... 51
2.7.4 Water Reclamation and Reuse Offer an Integrated Approach to
Wastewater Treatment and Water Resources Issues in Phoenix,
Arizona. ............................................................................................................. 54
2.7.5 Small and Growing Community: Yelm, Washington .......................................... 55
2.7.6 Landscape Uses of Reclaimed Water with Elevated Salinity;
El Paso, Texas ................................................................................................. 57
2.7.7 Use of Reclaimed Water in a Fabric Dyeing Industry ........................................ 58
2.7.8 Survey of Power Plants Using Reclaimed Water for
Cooling Water .................................................................................................... 58
2.7.9 Agricultural Reuse in Tallahassee, Florida ........................................................ 60
2.7.10 Spray Irrigation at Durbin Creek WWTP Western Carolina
Regional Sewer Authority .................................................................................. 60
2.7.11 Agricultural Irrigation of Vegetable Crops: Monterey, California ......................... 62
2.7.12 Water Conserv II: City of Orlando and Orange County, Florida ......................... 62
2.7.13 The Creation of a Wetlands Park: Petaluma, California ..................................... 64
2.7.14 Geysers Recharge Project: Santa Rosa, California .......................................... 64
2.7.15 Advanced Wastewater Reclamation in California .............................................. 65
2.7.16 An Investigation of Soil Aquifer Treatment for Sustainable Water ..................... 66
2.7.17 The City of West Palm Beach, Florida Wetlands-Based Water
Reclamation Project .......................................................................................... 67
vi
Chapter Page
2.7.18 Types of Reuse Applications in Florida ............................................................. 69
2.7.19 Regionalizing Reclaimed Water in the Tampa Bay Area .................................... 70
2.8 References ................................................................................................................................. 71
3 TECHNICAL ISSUES IN PLANNING WATER REUSE SYSTEMS .......................................................... 77
3.1 Planning Approach ......................................................................................................... 77
3.1.1 Preliminary Investigations ................................................................................. 78
3.1.2 Screening of Potential Markets ......................................................................... 78
3.1.3 Detailed Evaluation of Selected Markets ........................................................... 79
3.2 Potential Uses of Reclaimed Water ................................................................................ 80
3.2.1 National Water Use ........................................................................................... 81
3.2.2 Potential Reclaimed Water Demands ................................................................ 81
3.2.3 Reuse and Water Conservation ......................................................................... 85
3.3 Sources of Reclaimed Water .......................................................................................... 86
3.3.1 Locating the Sources ........................................................................................ 86
3.3.2 Characterizing the Sources ............................................................................... 87
3.3.2.1 Level of Treatment and Processes ....................................................... 87
3.3.2.2 Reclaimed Water Quality ...................................................................... 88
3.3.2.3 Reclaimed Water Quantity .................................................................... 89
3.3.2.4 Industrial Wastewater Contributions ..................................................... 90
3.4 Treatment Requirements for Water Reuse ..................................................................... 90
3.4.1 Health Assessment of Water Reuse ................................................................. 91
3.4.1.1 Mechanism of Disease Transmission ................................................... 91
3.4.1.2 Pathogenic Microorganisms and Health Risks ..................................... 92
3.4.1.3 Presence and Survival of Pathogens .................................................... 95
3.4.1.4 Pathogens and Indicator Organisms in Reclaimed Water ..................... 96
3.4.1.5 Aerosols ............................................................................................... 98
3.4.1.6 Infectious Disease Incidence Related to
Wastewater Reuse ............................................................................. 100
3.4.1.7 Chemical Constituents ....................................................................... 102
3.4.1.8 Endocrine Disrupters .......................................................................... 104
3.4.2 Treatment Requirements ................................................................................. 106
3.4.2.1 Disinfection ........................................................................................ 107
3.4.2.2 Advanced Wastewater Treatment ....................................................... 109
3.4.3 Reliability in Treatment .................................................................................... 113
3.4.3.1 EPA Guidelines for Reliability ............................................................. 113
3.4.3.2 Additional Requirements for Reuse Applications ................................ 115
3.4.3.3 Operator Training and Competence .................................................... 118
3.4.3.4 Quality Assurance in Monitoring ......................................................... 118
3.5 Seasonal Storage Requirements .................................................................................. 118
3.5.1 Identifying the Operating Parameters .............................................................. 120
3.5.2 Storage to Meet Irrigation Demands ................................................................ 121
3.5.3 Operating without Seasonal Storage ............................................................... 122
3.6 Supplemental Water Reuse System Facilities ............................................................. 122
3.6.1 Conveyance and Distribution Facilities ............................................................ 122
3.6.1.1 Public Health Safeguards ................................................................... 124
3.6.1.2 Operations and Maintenance .............................................................. 127
3.6.2 Operational Storage ......................................................................................... 128
3.6.3 Alternative Disposal Facilities ......................................................................... 129
3.6.3.1 Surface Water Discharge .................................................................... 130
3.6.3.2 Injection Wells .................................................................................... 130
vii
Chapter Page
3.6.3.3 Land Application ................................................................................. 131
3.7 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 132
3.7.1 Land Use Impacts ........................................................................................... 132
3.7.2 Stream Flow Impacts ...................................................................................... 133
3.7.3 Hydrogeological Impacts ................................................................................. 134
3.8 Case Studies ............................................................................................................... 134
3.8.1 Code of Good Practices for Water Reuse ........................................................ 134
3.8.2 Examples of Potable Water Separation Standards from the
State of Washington ........................................................................................ 135
3.8.3 An Example of using Risk Assessment to Establish Reclaimed
Water Quality .................................................................................................. 136
3.9 References ................................................................................................................... 137
4 WATER REUSE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES IN THE U.S. ....................................................... 149
4.1 Inventory of Existing State Regulations and Guidelines ............................................... 149
4.1.1 Reclaimed Water Quality and Treatment Requirements .................................. 153
4.1.1.1 Unrestricted Urban Reuse ................................................................... 153
4.1.1.2 Restricted Urban Reuse ...................................................................... 154
4.1.1.3 Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops ......................................................... 155
4.1.1.4 Agricultural Reuse – Non-food Crops .................................................. 156
4.1.1.5 Unrestricted Recreational Reuse ........................................................ 157
4.1.1.6 Restricted Recreational Reuse ........................................................... 158
4.1.1.7 Environmental – Wetlands .................................................................. 159
4.1.1.8 Industrial Reuse ................................................................................. 159
4.1.1.9 Groundwater Recharge ....................................................................... 160
4.1.1.10Indirect Potable Reuse ....................................................................... 161
4.1.2 Reclaimed Water Monitoring Requirements ..................................................... 162
4.1.3 Treatment Facility Reliability ........................................................................... 162
4.1.4 Reclaimed Water Storage ................................................................................ 164
4.1.5 Application Rates ............................................................................................ 164
4.1.6 Groundwater Monitoring ................................................................................... 165
4.1.7 Setback Distances for Irrigation ...................................................................... 165
4.2 Suggested Guidelines for Water Reuse ........................................................................ 165
4.3 Pathogens and Emerging Pollutants of Concern (EPOC) ............................................. 172
4.4 Pilot Testing ................................................................................................................. 172
4.5 References ................................................................................................................... 173
5 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES ................................................................................................. 175
5.1 Water Rights Law ......................................................................................................... 175
5.1.1 Appropriative Rights System ........................................................................... 176
5.1.2 Riparian Rights System ................................................................................... 176
5.1.3 Water Rights and Water Reuse ....................................................................... 176
5.1.4 Federal Water Rights Issues ........................................................................... 177
5.2 Water Supply and Use Regulations .............................................................................. 178
5.2.1 Water Supply Reductions ................................................................................ 178
5.2.2 Water Efficiency Goals .................................................................................... 178
5.2.3 Water Use Restrictions .................................................................................... 179
5.3 Wastewater Regulations ............................................................................................... 179
5.3.1 Effluent Quality Limits ..................................................................................... 180
5.3.2 Effluent Flow Limits ......................................................................................... 180
viii
Chapter Page
5.4 Safe Drinking Water Act – Source Water Protection .................................................... 180
5.5 Land Use and Environmental Regulations .................................................................... 181
5.5.1 General and Specific Plans ............................................................................. 181
5.5.2 Environmental Regulations .............................................................................. 182
5.5.2.1 Special Environmental Topics ............................................................ 183
5.6 Legal Issues in Implementation .................................................................................... 183
5.6.1 Construction Issues ........................................................................................ 183
5.6.1.1 System Construction Issues .............................................................. 184
5.6.1.2 Onsite Construction Issues ................................................................ 184
5.6.2 Wholesaler/Retailer Issues .............................................................................. 184
5.6.2.1 Institutional Criteria ............................................................................. 185
5.6.2.2 Institutional Inventory and Assessment .............................................. 185
5.6.3 Customer Issues ............................................................................................. 186
5.6.3.1 Statutory Customer Responsibilities ................................................... 186
5.6.3.2 Terms of Service and Commercial Arrangements .............................. 187
5.7 Case Studies ............................................................................................................... 187
5.7.1 Statutory Mandate to Utilize Reclaimed Water: California ......................................................... 187
5.7.2 Administrative Order to Evaluate Feasibility of Water Reclamation:
Fallbrook Sanitary District, Fallbrook, California ....................................................................... 188
5.7.3 Reclaimed Water User Agreements Instead of Ordinance:
Central Florida ........................................................................................................... 188
5.7.4 Interagency Agreement Required for Water Reuse: Monterey
County Water Recycling Project, Monterey, California .............................................................. 189
5.7.5 Public/Private Partnership to Expand Reuse Program:The City of
Orlando, Orange County and The Private Sector – Orlando,
Florida ........................................................................................................... 190
5.7.6 Inspection of Reclaimed Water Connections Protect Potable Water
Supply: Pinellas County Utilities, Florida ............................................................................................... 191
5.7.7 Oneida Indian Nation/Municipal/State Coordination Leads to
Effluent Reuse: Oneida Nation, New York .............................................................................................. 191
5.7.8 Implementing Massachusetts’ First Golf Course Irrigation System
Utilizing Reclaimed Water: Yarmouth, Massachusetts ........................................................................... 196
5.8 References ................................................................................................................... 198
6 FUNDING WATER REUSE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................. 199
6.1 Decision Making Tools ................................................................................................. 199
6.2 Externally Generated Funding Alternatives .................................................................. 200
6.2.1 Local Government Tax-Exempt Bonds ............................................................ 200
6.2.2 State and Federal Financial Assistance .......................................................... 201
6.2.2.1 State Revolving Fund ......................................................................... 201
6.2.2.2 Federal Policy .................................................................................... 202
6.2.2.3 Other Federal Sources ....................................................................... 202
6.2.2.4 State, Regional, and Local Grant and Loan Support ........................... 203
6.2.3 Capital Contributions ....................................................................................... 203
6.3 Internally Generated Funding Alternatives ................................................................... 204
6.3.1 Reclaimed Water User Charges ...................................................................... 204
6.3.2 Operating Budget and Cash Reserves ............................................................. 205
6.3.3 Property Taxes and Existing User Charges .................................................... 205
6.3.4 Public Utility Tax ............................................................................................. 206
6.3.5 Special Assessments or Special Tax Districts ............................................... 206
6.3.6 Impact Fees .................................................................................................... 206
ix
Chapter Page
6.4 Incremental Versus Proportionate Share Costs ........................................................... 206
6.4.1 Incremental Cost Basis ................................................................................... 206
6.4.2 Proportionate Share Cost Basis ...................................................................... 207
6.5 Phasing and Participation Incentives ........................................................................... 208
6.6 Sample Rates and Fees ............................................................................................... 209
6.6.1 Connection Fees ............................................................................................. 209
6.6.2 User Fees ....................................................................................................... 209
6.7 Case Studies ............................................................................................................... 209
6.7.1 Unique Funding Aspects of the Town of Longboat Key Reclaimed
Water System ................................................................................................. 209
6.7.2 Financial Assistance in San Diego County, California ..................................... 212
6.7.3 Grant Funding Through the Southwest Florida Water Management
District......................................................................................................212
6.7.4 Use of Reclaimed Water to Augment Potable Supplies:
An Economic Perspective (California) ............................................................. 213
6.7.5 Impact Fee Development Considerations for Reclaimed Water
Projects: Hillsborough County, Florida ............................................................. 215
6.7.6 How Much Does it Cost and Who Pays: A Look at Florida’s
Reclaimed Water Rates ................................................................................... 216
6.7.7 Rate Setting for Industrial Reuse in San Marcos, Texas ................................. 218
6.8 References ................................................................................................................... 219
7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 221
7.1 Why Public Participation? ............................................................................................ 221
7.1.1 Informed Constituency .................................................................................... 221
7.2 Defining the “Public” ..................................................................................................... 222
7.3 Overview of Public Perceptions ................................................................................... 222
7.3.1 Residential and Commercial Reuse in Tampa, Florida .................................... 223
7.3.2 A Survey of WWTP Operators and Managers ................................................. 223
7.3.3 Public Opinion in San Francisco, California .................................................... 223
7.3.4 Clark County Sanitation District Water Reclamation Opinion
Surveys ........................................................................................................... 223
7.4 Involving the Public in Reuse Planning ........................................................................ 224
7.4.1 General Requirements for Public Participation ................................................ 226
7.4.1.1. Public Advisory Groups or Task Forces ............................................. 228
7.4.1.2 Public Participation Coordinator .......................................................... 229
7.4.2 Specific Customer Needs ................................................................................ 229
7.4.2.1 Urban Systems .................................................................................. 229
7.4.2.2 Agricultural Systems .......................................................................... 229
7.4.2.3 Reclaimed Water for Potable Purposes .............................................. 230
7.4.3 Agency Communication .................................................................................. 230
7.4.4 Public Information Through Implementation .................................................... 231
7.4.5 Promoting Successes ..................................................................................... 231
7.5 Case Studies ............................................................................................................... 231
7.5.1 Accepting Produce Grown with Reclaimed Water: Monterey,
California ......................................................................................................... 231
7.5.2 Water Independence in Cape Coral – An Implementation Update
in 2003 ........................................................................................................... 232
7.5.3 Learning Important Lessons When Projects Don’t Go as Planned .................. 234
7.5.3.1 San Diego, California .......................................................................... 234
7.5.3.2 Public Outreach May not be Enough: Tampa, Florida ........................ 235
x
Chapter Page
7.5.4 Pinellas County, Florida Adds Reclaimed Water to Three R’s of
Education ........................................................................................................ 236
7.5.5 Yelm, Washington, A Reclaimed Water Success Story .................................. 237
7.5.6 Gwinnett County, Georgia – Master Plan Update Authored
by Public ......................................................................................................... 237
7.5.7 AWWA Golf Course Reclaimed Water Market Assessment ............................ 238
7.6 References ................................................................................................................... 240
8 WATER REUSE OUTSIDE THE U.S. .................................................................................................... 241
8.1 Main Characteristics of Water Reuse in the World ....................................................... 241
8.2 Water Reuse Drivers .................................................................................................... 242
8.2.1 Increasing Water Demands ............................................................................. 243
8.2.2 Water Scarcity ................................................................................................ 243
8.2.3 Environmental Protection and Public Health ................................................... 245
8.3 Water Reuse Applications – Urban and Agriculture ...................................................... 245
8.4 Planning Water Reuse Projects .................................................................................... 246
8.4.1 Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage ........................................................... 247
8.4.2 Technical Issues ............................................................................................. 247
8.4.2.1 Water Quality Requirements ............................................................... 249
8.4.2.2 Treatment Requirements .................................................................... 252
8.4.3 Institutional Issues .......................................................................................... 253
8.4.4 Legal Issues .................................................................................................... 253
8.4.4.1 Water Rights and Water Allocation ..................................................... 253
8.4.4.2 Public Health and Environmental Protection ....................................... 254
8.4.5 Economic and Financial Issues ...................................................................... 254
8.5 Examples of Water Reuse Programs Outside the U.S. ................................................ 255
8.5.1 Argentina ......................................................................................................... 255
8.5.2 Australia .......................................................................................................... 255
8.5.2.1 Aurora, Australia ................................................................................. 255
8.5.2.2 Mawson Lakes, Australia ................................................................... 256
8.5.2.3 Virginia Project, South Australia ......................................................... 256
8.5.3 Belgium ........................................................................................................... 257
8.5.4 Brazil ........................................................................................................... 258
8.5.4.1 Sao Paulo, Brazil ................................................................................ 258
8.5.4.2 Sao Paulo International Airport, Brazil ................................................ 259
8.5.5 Chile ........................................................................................................... 259
8.5.6 China ........................................................................................................... 260
8.5.7 Cyprus ........................................................................................................... 261
8.5.8 Egypt ........................................................................................................... 261
8.5.9 France ........................................................................................................... 262
8.5.10 Greece ........................................................................................................... 262
8.5.11 India ........................................................................................................... 263
8.5.12.1Hyderabad, India ................................................................................ 264
8.5.12 Iran ........................................................................................................... 264
8.5.13 Israel ........................................................................................................... 265
8.5.14 Italy ........................................................................................................... 266
8.5.15 Japan ........................................................................................................... 267
8.5.16 Jordan ........................................................................................................... 267
8.5.17 Kuwait ........................................................................................................... 268
8.5.18 Mexico ........................................................................................................... 269
8.5.19 Morocco .......................................................................................................... 271
xi
Chapter Page
8.5.20.1Drarga, Morocco ................................................................................. 271
8.5.20 Namibia ........................................................................................................... 272
8.5.21 Oman ........................................................................................................... 272
8.5.22 Pakistan .......................................................................................................... 273
8.5.23 Palestinian National Authority ......................................................................... 274
8.5.24 Peru ........................................................................................................... 275
8.5.25 Saudi Arabia .................................................................................................... 275
8.5.26 Singapore ........................................................................................................ 276
8.5.27 South Africa .................................................................................................... 277
8.5.28 Spain ........................................................................................................... 278
8.5.28.1Costa Brava, Spain ............................................................................ 278
8.5.28.2Portbou, Spain .................................................................................... 279
8.5.28.3Aiguamolls de l’Emporda Natural Preserve, Spain ............................. 279
8.5.28.4The City of Victoria, Spain ................................................................. 279
8.5.29 Sweden ........................................................................................................... 279
8.5.30 Syria ........................................................................................................... 280
8.5.31 Tunisia ........................................................................................................... 280
8.5.32 United Arab Emirates ...................................................................................... 282
8.5.33 United Kingdom ............................................................................................... 282
8.5.34 Yemen ........................................................................................................... 283
8.5.35 Zimbabwe ........................................................................................................ 284
8.6 References ........................................................................................................... 284
APPENDIX A STATE REUSE REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES ................................................................ 289
APPENDIX B STATE WEBSITES ........................................................................................................... 441
APPENDIX C ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ....................................................................................... 443
APPENDIX D INVENTORY OF RECLAIMED WATER PROJECTS ................................................................ 445
xii
Tables
Table Page
2-1 Typical Cycles of Concentration (COC) ............................................................................................ 14
2-2 Florida and California Reclaimed Water Quality ................................................................................ 15
2-3 North Richmond Water Reclamation Plant Sampling Requirements ................................................. 18
2-4 Industrial Process Water Quality Requirements ............................................................................... 19
2-5 Pulp and Paper Process Water Quality Requirements ...................................................................... 19
2-6 Efficiencies for Different Irrigation Systems ..................................................................................... 22
2-7 Recommended Limits for Constituents in Reclaimed Water for Irrigation ......................................... 25
2-8 Comparison of Major Engineering Factors for Engineered Groundwater
Recharge .......................................................................................................................................... 33
2-9 Water Quality at Phoenix, Arizona SAT System .............................................................................. 37
2-10 Factors that May Influence Virus Movement to Groundwater ........................................................... 41
2-11 Physical and Chemical Sampling Results from the San Diego Potable
Reuse Study .................................................................................................................................... 47
2-12 San Diego Potable Reuse Study: Heavy Metals and Trace Organics Results .................................. 48
2-13 Average Discharge Rates and Quality of Municipal Reclaimed Effluent in
El Paso and Other Area Communities .............................................................................................. 57
2-14 Treatment Processes for Power Plant Cooling Water ....................................................................... 59
2-15 Field Sites for Wetlands/SAT Research ........................................................................................... 67
3-1 Designer Waters ............................................................................................................................... 89
3-2 Infectious Agents Potentially Present in Untreated Domestic Wastewater ....................................... 93
3-3 Ct Requirements for Free Chlorine and Chlorine Dioxide to Achieve 99

Percent Inactivation of E. Coli Compared to Other Microorganisms ................................................. 95
3-4 Microorganism Concentrations in Raw Wastewater .......................................................................... 96
3-5 Microorganism Concentrations in Secondary Non-Disinfected Wastewater ...................................... 96
xiii
Table Page
3-6 Typical Pathogen Survival Times at 20-30 oC .................................................................................. 97
3-7 Pathogens in Untreated and Treated Wastewater ............................................................................. 98
3-8 Summary of Florida Pathogen Monitoring Data ................................................................................ 99
3-9 Operational Data for Florida Facilities ............................................................................................... 99
3-10 Some Suggested Alternative Indicators for Use in Monitoring Programs ........................................ 100
3-11 Inorganic and Organic Constituents of Concern in Water Reclamation
and Reuse ...................................................................................................................................... 103
12-12 Examples of the Types and Sources of Substances that have been
Reported as Potential Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals .................................................................. 105
3-13a Microfiltration Removal Performance Data ..................................................................................... 112
3-13b Reverse Osmosis Performance Data ............................................................................................. 112
3-14 Summary of Class I Reliability Requirements ................................................................................ 115
3-15 Water Reuse Required to Equal the Benefit of Step Feed BNR Upgrades ...................................... 131
3-16 Average and Maximum Conditions for Exposure ............................................................................ 137
4-1 Summary of State Reuse Regulations and Guidelines ................................................................... 152
4-2 Number of States with Regulations or Guidelines for Each Type of Reuse Application .................. 151
4-3 Unrestricted Urban Reuse ............................................................................................................... 153
4-4 Restricted Urban Reuse .................................................................................................................. 154
4-5 Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops .................................................................................................... 155
4-6 Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops ............................................................................................. 157
4-7 Unrestricted Recreational Reuse .................................................................................................... 158
4-8 Restricted Recreational Reuse ....................................................................................................... 158
4-9 Environmental Reuse – Wetlands ................................................................................................... 159
4-10 Industrial Reuse ............................................................................................................................. 160
4-11 Groundwater Recharge ................................................................................................................... 161
4-12 Indirect Potable Reuse ................................................................................................................... 163
4-13 Suggested Guidelines for Water Reuse .......................................................................................... 167
xiv
Table Page
5-1 Some Common Institutional Patterns ............................................................................................. 185
6-1 Credits to Reclaimed Water Costs .................................................................................................. 208
6-2 User Fees for Existing Urban Reuse Systems ............................................................................... 210
6-3 Discounts for Reclaimed Water Use in California ........................................................................... 209
6-4 Estimated Capital and Maintenance Costs for Phase IVA With and Without
Federal and State Reimbursements ............................................................................................... 214
6-5 Cost Estimate for Phase I of the GWR System ............................................................................. 214
6-6 Total Annual Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 215
6-7 Reclaimed Water Impact Fees ....................................................................................................... 216
6-8 Average Rates for Reclaimed Water Service in Florida .................................................................. 217
6-9 Percent Costs Recovered Through Reuse Rates ........................................................................... 218
7-1 Positive and Negative Responses to Potential Alternatives for Reclaimed
Water .............................................................................................................................................. 224
7-2 Survey Results for Different Reuse ................................................................................................ 227
7-3 Trade Reactions and Expectations Regarding Produce Grown with
Reclaimed Water ............................................................................................................................ 232
7-4 Chronology of WICC Implementation .............................................................................................. 233
8-1 Sources of Water in Several Countries ........................................................................................... 242
8-2 Wastewater Flows, Collection, and Treatment in Selected Countries in
1994 (Mm3/year) ............................................................................................................................. 247
8-3 Summary of Water Quality Parameters of Concern for Water Reuse ............................................. 250
8-4 Summary of Water Recycling Guidelines and Mandatory Standards
in the United States and Other Countries ....................................................................................... 251
8-5 Life-Cycle Cost of Typical Treatment Systems for a 40,000
Population-Equivalent Flow of Wastewater ..................................................................................... 254
8-6 Summary of Australian Reuse Projects .......................................................................................... 257
8-7 Water Demand and Water Availability per Region in the Year 2000 ................................................ 259
8-8 Effluent Flow Rates from Wastewater Treatment Plants in
Metropolitan Sao Paulo .................................................................................................................. 259
8-9 Water Reuse at the Sao Paulo International Airport ........................................................................ 260
xv
Table Page
8-10 Major Reuse Projects ..................................................................................................................... 263
8-11 Uses of Reclaimed Water in Japan ................................................................................................ 268
8-12 Water Withdrawal in Kuwait ............................................................................................................ 269
8-13 Reclaimed Water Standards in Kuwait ............................................................................................ 270
8-14 Effluent Quality Standards from the Sulaibiya Treatment and
Reclamation Plant .......................................................................................................................... 270
8-15 Plant Performance Parameters at the Drarga Wastewater Treatment Plant ................................... 273
8-16 Reclaimed Water Standards for Unrestricted Irrigation in Saudi Arabia .......................................... 276
8-17 Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Cities of Syria ....................................................................... 281
xvi
Figures
Figure Page
1-1 Estimated and Projected Urban Population in the World ...................................................................... 2
2-1 Potable and Nonpotable Water Use – Monthly Historic Demand Variation,
Irvine Ranch Water District, California .................................................................................................. 9
2-2 Potable and Nonpotable Water Use – Monthly Historic Demand Variation,
St. Petersburg, Florida ......................................................................................................................... 9
2-3 Cooling Tower .................................................................................................................................... 14
2-4 Comparison of Agricultural Irrigation, Public/Domestic, and Total
Freshwater Withdrawals ..................................................................................................................... 20
2-5 Agricultural Reuse Categories by Percent in California ...................................................................... 20
2-6 Three Engineered Methods for Groundwater Recharge ...................................................................... 32
2-7 Schematic of Soil-Aquifer Treatment Systems .................................................................................. 36
2-8 Contaminants Regulated by the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations ........................................................................................................................................ 43
2-9 Water Resources at RCID .................................................................................................................. 50
2-10 Altamonte Springs Annual Potable Water Demands per Capita ......................................................... 51
2-11 Estimated Potable Water Conserved Using Best LEM Method .......................................................... 52
2-12 Estimated Potable Water Conserved Using the CCM Method ............................................................ 52
2-13 Estimated Potable Water Conserved Using Both Methods ................................................................ 53
2-14 Estimated Raw Water Supply vs. Demand for the 2002 South/Central
Service Area ...................................................................................................................................... 53
2-15 North Phoenix Reclaimed Water Service Area ................................................................................... 56
2-16 Durbin Creek Storage Requirements as a Function of Irrigated Area ................................................. 61
2-17 Project Flow Path ............................................................................................................................... 68
2-18 Growth of Reuse in Florida ................................................................................................................. 69
xvii
Figure Page
2-19 Available Reclaimed Water in Pasco, Pinellas, and Hillsborough Counties ........................................ 70
3-1 Phases of Reuse Program Planning .................................................................................................. 77
3-2 1995 U.S. Fresh Water Demands by Major Uses ............................................................................... 81
3-3 Fresh Water Source, Use, and Disposition ........................................................................................ 82
3-4 Wastewater Treatment Return Flow by State, 1995 ........................................................................... 83
3-5 Total Withdrawals ............................................................................................................................... 83
3-6 Average Indoor Water Usage (Total = 69.3 gpcd) .............................................................................. 84
3-7 Potable and Reclaimed Water Usage in St. Petersburg, Florida ........................................................ 86
3-8 Three Configuration Alternatives for Water Reuse Systems .............................................................. 87
3-9 Reclaimed Water Supply vs. Irrigation Demand ................................................................................. 90
3-10 Generalized Flow Sheet for Wastewater Treatment ......................................................................... 107
3-11 Particle Size Separation Comparison Chart ..................................................................................... 109
3-12 Average Monthly Rainfall and Pan Evaporation ............................................................................... 120
3-13 Average Pasture Irrigation Demand and Potential Supply ................................................................ 121
3-14 Example of Multiple Reuse Distribution System .............................................................................. 124
3-15 Reclaimed Water Advisory Sign ....................................................................................................... 125
3-16 Florida Separation Requirements for Reclaimed Water Mains .......................................................... 126
3-17 Anticipated Daily Reclaimed Water Demand Curve vs. Diurnal Reclaimed
Water Flow Curve ............................................................................................................................. 129
3-18 TDS Increase Due to Evaporation for One Year as a Function of Pond
Depth ............................................................................................................................................... 130
3-19 Orange County, Florida, Redistribution Constructed Wetland ........................................................... 132
3-20 A Minimum 5-Foot (1.5 m) Horizontal Pipe Separation Coupled with and
18-Inch (46 cm) Vertical Separation ................................................................................................. 135
3-21 Irrigation Lateral Separation ............................................................................................................. 136
3-22 Lateral Crossing Requirements ........................................................................................................ 136
3-23 Parallel Water – Lateral Installation .................................................................................................. 136
4-1 California Water Reuse by Type (Total 358 mgd) ............................................................................. 150
xviii
Figure Page
4-2 California Water Reuse by Type (Total 584 mgd) ............................................................................. 150
6-1 Comparison of Reclaimed Water and Potable Water Rates in Southwest
Florida .............................................................................................................................................. 211
6-2 Comparison of Rate Basis for San Marcos Reuse Water ................................................................. 218
7-1 Public Beliefs and Opinions ............................................................................................................. 225
7-2 Support of Recycled Water Program Activities ................................................................................ 225
7-3 Survey Results for Different Reuse .................................................................................................. 226
7-4 Public Participation Program for Water Reuse System Planning ..................................................... 227
7-5 Survey Responses ........................................................................................................................... 239
8-1 World Populations in Cities .............................................................................................................. 243
8-2a Countries with Chronic Water Stress Using Non-Renewable Resources .......................................... 244
8-2b Countries with Moderate Water Stress ............................................................................................. 244
8-3a Countries with Total Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage Over
80 Percent ....................................................................................................................................... 248
8-3b Countries with Total Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage Over
50 Percent ....................................................................................................................................... 248
8-4 Future Demand for Irrigation Water Compared with Potential Availability of
Reclaimed Water for Irrigation in the West Bank, Palestine ............................................................. 274
xix
xx
Acknowledgements
The Guidelines for Water Reuse debuted in 1980 and This version of the Guidelines for Water Reuse docu
was updated in 1992. Since then, water reuse prac ment was developed by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
tices have continued to develop and evolve. This edi (CDM) through a Cooperative Research and Develop
tion of the Guidelines offers new information and greater ment Agreement (CRADA) with the U.S. Environmental
detail about a wide range of reuse applications and in Protection Agency (EPA) under the direction of Robert
troduces new health considerations and treatment tech L. Matthews, P.E., DEE as Project Director and David
nologies supporting water reuse operations. It includes K. Ammerman, P.E. as Project Manager, with hands-on
an updated inventory of state reuse regulations and an assistance from Karen K. McCullen, P.E., Valerie P.
expanded coverage of water reuse practices in coun Going, P.E., and Lisa M. Prieto, E.I. of CDM. These
tries outside of the U. S. Dozens of reuse experts con developers also wish to acknowledge the help of Dr.
tributed text and case studies to highlight how reuse James Crook, P.E., Dr. Bahman Sheikh; Julia Forgas,
applications can and do work in the real world. Gloria Booth, and Karen Jones of CDM, as well as;
MerriBeth Farnham of Farnham and Associates, Inc.
The 2004 Guidelines for Water Reuse document was and Perry Thompson of Thompson and Thompson
built upon information generated by the substantial re Graphics Inc.
search and development efforts and extensive demon
stration projects on water reuse practices throughout Partial funding to support the preparation of the updated
the world, ranging from potable reuse to wetlands treat Guidelines document was provided by EPA and the U.S.
ment. Some of the most useful sources drawn upon in Agency for International Development (USAID). The
developing this update include: proceedings from Ameri Guidelines document was prepared by CDM with con
can Water Works Association/Water Environment Fed tributions from more 100 participants from other con
eral (AWWA/WEF) Water Reuse conferences, WEF sulting firms, state and federal agencies, local water and
national conferences, and WateReuse conferences; wastewater authorities, and academic institutions. We
selected articles from WEF and AWWA journals; mate wish to acknowledge the direction, advice, and sugges
rials provided by the Guidelines review committee; and tions of the sponsoring agencies, notably: Mr. Robert
a series of WERF reports on water reclamation and re K. Bastian and Dr. John Cicmanec of EPA, as well as
lated subjects published by the National Research Coun- Dr. Peter McCornick, P.E., Dr. John Austin, and Mr. Dan
sel/National Academy of Sciences, WEF/AWWA. Deely of USAID. We would also like to thank the many
technical reviewers who so painstakingly reviewed this
Please note that the statutes and regulations described document.
in this document may contain legally binding require
ments. The summaries of those laws provided here, as Our special thanks go to the following group of our col
well as the approaches suggested in this document, do leagues who took the time to share their life experiences
not substitute for those statutes or regulations, nor are and technical knowledge to make these Guidelines rel
these guidelines themselves any kind of regulation. This evant and user-friendly. The contributors are broken
document is intended to be solely informational and does up into three categories: those who directly authored
not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, States, and/or edited text, those who attended the technical
local or tribal governments, or members of the public. review meeting (TRC), and those who were general re
Any EPA decisions regarding a particular water reuse viewers. Some contributors are listed more than once
project will be made based on the applicable statutes to demonstrate their multiple roles in the preparation of
and regulations. EPA will continue to review and up the document.
date these guidelines as necessary and appropriate.
xxi
Please note that the listing of these contributors in no
*Brandon G. Braley, P.E.
way identifies them as supporters of this document or

CDM International
represents their ideas and/or opinions on the subject.

Cambridge, Massachusetts
These persons are the leaders in the field and their ex
pertise from every angle has added to the depth and

Dennis Cafaro
breadth of the document.

Resource Conservation Systems
Bonita Springs, Florida
The following colleagues contributed in the way of edit
ing or submitting text and/or case studies. The aster

Kasey Brook Christian
isks annotate those who were part of the international

University of Florida
efforts.
Gainesville, Florida
*Dr. Felix P. Amerasinghe

Dr. Russell Christman
International Water Management Institute

University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill
Sri Lanka
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Daniel Anderson, P.E.

*Max S. Clark, P.E.
CDM
CDM International
West Palm Beach, Florida

Hong Kong
Anthony J. Andrade
Pat Collins
Southwest Florida Water Management District

Parsons
Brooksville, Florida
Santa Rosa, California
Laura Andrews, P.E.

Aimee Conroy
CDM
Phoenix Water Services Department
Sarasota, Florida
Phoenix, Arizona
Ed Archuleta
Dr. Robert C. Cooper
El Paso Water Utilities

BioVir Laboratories, Inc.
El Paso, Texas
Benicia, California
*Dr. Takashi Asano

Robin Cort
University of California at Davis

Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
Davis, California
Oakland, California
Richard W. Atwater
*Geoffrey Croke
Inland Empire Utilities Agency

PSI-Delta
Rancho Cucamonga, California

Australia
Shelly Badger
Dr. James Crook, P.E.
City of Yelm
Environmental Consultant
Yelm, Washington
Norwell, Massachusetts
John E. Balliew, P.E.

Phil Cross
El Paso Water Utilities

Woodard & Curran, Inc./Water Conserv II
El Paso, Texas
Winter Garden, Florida
Kristina Bentson
Katharine Cupps, P.E.
Katz and Associates

Washington Department of Ecology
La Jolla, California
Olympia, Washington
Randy Bond
*Jeroen H. J. Ensink
SE Farm Facility - City of Tallahassee
Tallahassee, Florida
India
xxii
William Everest
Lauren Hildebrand, P.E.
Orange County Water Department

Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority
Fountain Valley, California

Greenville, South Carolina
David Farabee
Dr. Helene Hilger
Environmental Consultant
University of North Carolina – Charlotte
Sarasota, Florida
Charlotte, North Carolina
Dr. Peter Fox

Stephen M. Hoffman
National Center for Sustainable Water Supply

CDM
Arizona State University

Orlando, Florida
Tempe, Arizona
Keith Israel
Monica Gasca
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts

Monterey, California
Whittier, California
Joe Ann Jackson
Jason M. Gorrie, P.E.

PBS&J
CDM
Orlando, Florida
Tampa, Florida
Robert S. Jaques
Brian J. Graham, P.E., DEE

United Water
Carlsbad, California
Laura Johnson
Gary K. Grinnell, P.E.

East Bay Municipal Utility District
Las Vegas Valley Water District

Oakland, California
Las Vegas, Nevada
Leslie C. Jones, P.E.
Michael Gritzuk
CDM

Phoenix, Arizona
Sara Katz
*Dr. Ross E. Hagan

Katz & Associates
USAID
La Jolla, California
Egypt
Diane Kemp
Raymond E. Hanson, P.E.

CDM
Orange County Utilities Water Reclamation Division

Sarasota, Florida
Orlando, Florida
*Mario Kerby
Earle Hartling
Water Resources Sustainability Project
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts

Morocco
Whittier, California
*Dr. Valentina Lazarova
Roy L. Herndon
Suez Environment - CIRSEE
Orange County Water District

France
Thomas L. Lothrop, P.E., DEE
*Dr. Ivanhildo Hesponhol

City of Orlando
Polytechnic School, University of São Paolo

Orlando, Florida
Brazil
xxiii
Peter M. MacLaggan, P.E., Esq. Paul R. Puckorius
Poseidon Resources Corporation Puckorius & Associates, Inc.
San Diego, California Evergreen, Colorado
Rocco J. Maiellano William F. Quinn, Jr.

Evesham Municipal Utilities Authority El Paso Water Utilities
Evesham, New Jersey El Paso, Texas
*Chris Marles Roderick D. Reardon, P.E., DEE

SA Water CDM
Australia Orlando, Florida
Ted W. McKim, P.E. Craig L. Riley, P.E.

Reedy Creek Energy Services State of Washington Department of Health
Lake Buena Vista, Florida Spokane, Washington
Dianne B. Mills Martha Rincón

CDM Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts
Charlotte, North Carolina Whittier, California
Dr. Thomas M. Missimer, PG Dr. Joan Rose

CDM Michigan State University
Ft. Myers, Florida East Lansing, Michigan
Dr. Seiichi Miyamoto Eric Rosenblum

Texas A&M University/Agricultural Research Center City of San Jose
El Paso, Texas San Jose, California
*Dr. Rafael Mujeriego Steve Rossi

Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña Phoenix Water Services Department
Spain Phoenix, Arizona
Richard Nagel, P.E. Dr. A. Charles Rowney, P.E.

West and Central Basin Municipal Water Districts CDM
Carson, California Orlando, Florida
Margaret Nellor Robert W. Sackellares

Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts GA-Pacific Corporation
Whittier, California Atlanta, Georgia
David Ornelas, P.E. Richard H. Sakaji

El Paso Water Utilities California Department of Health Services
El Paso, Texas Berkeley, California
Ray T. Orvin *Dr. Lluis Sala

Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority Consorci de la Costa Brava
Greenville, South Carolina Spain
*Francis Pamminger *Ahmad Sawalha

Yarra Valley Water Ltd. USAID
Australia West Bank & Gaza
Jeffrey F. Payne, P.E., DEE Dr. Larry N. Schwartz

CDM CDM
Charlotte, North Carolina Orlando, Florida
xxiv
*Dr. Christopher Scott, P.E.
Andy Terrey

India
Phoenix, Arizona
Kathy F. Scott
Hal Thomas
Southwest Florida Water Management District

City of Walla Walla Public Works
Brooksville, Florida
Walla Walla, Washington
*Naief Saad Seder

Sandra Tripp, P.E.
Jordan Valley Authority - Ministry of Water & Irrigation

CDM
Jordan
Dr. David L. Sedlak

Joseph V. Towry
University of California - Berkeley

City of St. Petersburg Water Systems Maintenance
Berkeley, California
Division
St. Petersburg, Florida
*Manel Serra
Consorci de la Costa Brava

Jay Unwin
Spain
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
*Dr. Bahman Sheikh
Water Reuse Consulting

Joe Upchurch
San Francisco, CA
Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority
Greenville, South Carolina
Wayne Simpson, P.E.
Richard A. Alaimo & Associates

*Daniel van Oosterwijck
Mount Holly, New Jersey

Yarra Valley Water
Australia
Dr. Theresa R. Slifko
Orange County Government

Florence T. Wedington, P.E.
Orlando, Florida
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Oakland, California
Michael P. Smith, P.E.
CDM
Nancy J. Wheatley, J.D.
Tampa, Florida
Water Resources Strategies
Siasconset, Massachusetts
Melissa J. Stanford
National Regulatory Research Institute

Lee P. Wiseman, P.E., DEE
Columbus, Ohio
CDM
Orlando, Florida
Keith Stoeffel

*Ralph Woolley
Spokane, Washington
Brisbane City Council
Australia
Stephen C. Stratton
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.

David Young
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

CDM
Robert D. Teegarden, P.E.
Orange County Utilities Engineering Division
Orlando, Florida
xxv
The following persons attended the TRC in Phoenix, Ari Richard Nagel, P.E.
zona. West and Central Basin Municipal Water Districts
Carson, California
Dr. Barnes Bierck, P.E.

Environmental Engineering Consultant Joan Oppenheimer
Chapel Hill, North Carolina MWH
Pasadena, California
Dr. Herman Bouwer

U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory Jerry D. Phillips, P.E.
Phoenix, Arizona Jacobs Civil, Inc.
Orlando, Florida
Dennis Cafaro
Resource Conservation Systems

Alan H. Plummer, P.E., DEE
Bonita Springs, Florida

Alan Plummer Associates, Inc.
Fort Worth, Texas
Lori Ann Carroll
Sarasota County Environmental Services

Fred Rapach, R.E.P.
Sarasota, Florida
Palm Beach County Water Utilities Department
West Palm Beach, Florida
Tracy A. Clinton
Carollo Engineers
Roderick D. Reardon, P.E., DEE
Walnut Creek, California

CDM
Orlando, Florida
Katharine Cupps, P.E.

Alan E. Rimer, P.E., DEE
Olympia, Washington
Black & Veatch International Company
Cary, North Carolina
Gary K. Grinnell, P.E.
Las Vegas Valley Water District

Todd L. Tanberg, P.E.
Las Vegas, Nevada

Pinellas County Utilities
Clearwater, Florida
Dr. Helene Hilger
University of North Carolina - Charlotte

Dr. Donald M. Thompson, P.E.

CDM
Jacksonville, Florida
Robert S. Jaques

Don Vandertulip, P.E.
Pape-Dawson Engineers, Inc.
San Antonio, Texas
Heather Kunz
CH2M Hill
Michael P. Wehner, MPA, REHS
Atlanta, Georgia
Keith Lewinger
Fallbrook Public Utility District

Nancy J. Wheatley, J.D.
Fallbrook, California
Water Resource Strategies
Siasconset, Massachusetts
Craig Lichty, P.E.
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
San Francisco, California
Jeff Mosher
WateReuse Association
Alexandria, Virginia
xxvi
Robert Whitley
The following individuals also provided review comments
Whitley, Burchett and Associates
on behalf of the U.S. EPA:
Walnut Creek, California
Howard Beard
Ronald E. Young, P.E., DEE
EPA Office of Water/Office of Groundwater and Drinking
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District
Water
Lake Elsinore, California
Dr. Phillip Berger

The following contributors reviewed portions or all of the
EPA Office of Water/Office of Groundwater and Drinking
text.
Water
Earnest Earn
Bob Brobst
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
EPA Region 8
Atlanta, Georgia
Denver, Colorado
Christianne Ferraro, P.E.

Glendon D. Deal
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
USDA/RUS
Orlando, Florida
David Del Porto

Patrick Gallagher
Ecological Engineering Group, Inc.
CDM
Dr. Jorg Drewes
Colorado School of Mines
Robert H. Hultquist
State of California Department of Health Services

Alan Godfree
Sacramento, California
United Utilities Water PLC
Frank J. Johns II, P.E.

Jim Goodrich
Arcadis G&M Inc.
EPA ORD/NRMRL
Highlands Ranch, Colorado
Cincinnati, Ohio
C. Robert Mangrum, P.E. Dr. Hend Gorchev

CH2M Hill
EPA Office of Water/Office of Science and Technology
Deerfield Beach, Florida
Dr. Fred Hauchman

Kate Martin EPA ORD/NHEERL
Narasimhan Consulting Services Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Irvine, California
Mark Kellet
David MacIntyre Northbridge Environmental
PB Water
Orlando, Florida Dr. Robert A. Rubin
UDSDA Extension Service
Dr. Choon Nam Ong NCSU on detail to EPA OWM
National University of Singapore
Singapore Ben Shuman
USDA/RUS
Henry Ongerth
Consulting Engineer Carrie Wehling
Berkeley, California EPA Office of General Counsel/Water Law Office
David R. Refling, P.E., DEE Nancy Yoshikawa

Boyle Engineering Corporation EPA Region 9
Orlando, Florida San Francisco, California
xxvii
xxviii
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The world’s population is expected to increase dramati- any kind of regulation. In addition, neither the U.S. Envi-
cally between now and the year 2020 - and with this ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) nor the U.S. Agency
growth will come an increased need for water to meet for International Development (USAID) proposes stan-
various needs, as well as an increased production of dards for water reuse in this publication or any other.
wastewater. Many communities throughout the world are This document is intended to be solely informational and
approaching, or have already reached, the limits of their does not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA,
available water supplies; water reclamation and reuse states, local or tribal governments, or members of the
have almost become necessary for conserving and ex- public. Any EPA decisions regarding a particular water
tending available water supplies. Water reuse may also reuse project will be made based on the applicable stat-
present communities with an alternate wastewater dis- utes and regulations. EPA will continue to review and
posal method as well as provide pollution abatement by update these guidelines as necessary and appropriate.
diverting effluent discharge away from sensitive surface
waters. Already accepted and endorsed by the public in In states where standards do not exist or are being re-
many urban and agricultural areas, properly imple- vised or expanded, the Guidelines can assist in devel-
mented nonpotable reuse projects can help communi- oping reuse programs and appropriate regulations. The
ties meet water demand and supply challenges without Guidelines will also be useful to consulting engineers
any known significant health risks. and others involved in the evaluation, planning, design,
operation, or management of water reclamation and re-
1.1 Objectives of the Guidelines use facilities. In addition, an extensive chapter on inter-
national reuse is included to provide background infor-
Water reclamation for nonpotable reuse has been adopted mation and discussion of relevant water reuse issues
in the U.S. and elsewhere without the benefit of national for authorities in other countries where reuse is being
or international guidelines or standards. Twenty-five states planned, developed, and implemented. In the U.S., wa-
currently have regulations regarding water reuse. The ter reclamation and reuse standards are the responsibil-
World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines for agricul- ity of state agencies.
tural irrigation reuse (dated 1989) are under revision
(World Health Organization Website, 2003). 1.2 Water Demands and Reuse
The primary purpose of the 2004 EPA Guidelines for Water Growing urbanization in water-scarce areas of the world
Reuse is to present and summarize water reuse guide- exacerbates the situation of increasing water demands
lines, with supporting information, for the benefit of utili- for domestic, industrial, commercial, and agricultural
ties and regulatory agencies, particularly in the U.S. The purposes. Figure 1-1 demonstrates the rapid growth rate
Guidelines cover water reclamation for nonpotable urban, of the urban population worldwide. In the year 2000, 2.85
industrial, and agricultural reuse, as well as augmenta- billion people (out of a worldwide population of 6.06 bil-
tion of potable water supplies through indirect reuse. Di- lion) were living in urban regions (United Nations Secre-
rect potable reuse is also covered, although only briefly tariat, 2001). This increasing urban population results in
since it is not practiced in the U.S. Please note that the a growing water demand to meet domestic, commercial,
statutes and regulations described in this document may industrial, and agricultural needs. Coupled with deplet-
contain legally binding requirements. The summaries of ing fresh water sources, utility directors and managers
those laws provided here, as well as the approaches sug- are faced with the challenge to supply water to a growing
gested in this document, do not substitute for those stat- customer base.
utes or regulations, nor are these guidelines themselves
Figure 1-1 Estimated and Projected Urban the year 2010. Likewise, California has a statutory goal
Population in the World of doubling its current use by 2010. Texas currently re-
uses approximately 230 mgd (8.7 x 105 m3) and Arizona
reuses an estimated 200 mgd (7.6 x 105 m3). While these
4 states account for the majority of the water reuse in
the U.S., several other states have growing water reuse
programs including Nevada, Colorado, Georgia, North
Carolina, Virginia, and Washington. At least 27 states
now have water reclamation facilities, and the majority
of states have regulations dealing with water reuse
(Gritzuk, 2003).
1.3 Source Substitution
Under the broad definition of water reclamation and re-

use, sources of reclaimed water may range from indus-
Adapted from: United Nations Secretariat, 2001.
trial process waters to the tail waters of agricultural irri-
gation systems. For the purposes of these Guidelines,
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is developing a pro- however, the sources of reclaimed water are limited to
gram, Water 2025, to focus attention on the emerging the effluent generated by domestic wastewater treat-
need for water. Explosive population growth in urban ar- ment facilities (WWTFs).
eas of the western U.S., along with a growing demand
for available water supplies for environmental and recre- The use of reclaimed water for nonpotable purposes
ational uses, is conflicting with the national dependence offers the potential for exploiting a “new” resource that
on water for the production of food and fiber from western can be substituted for existing potable sources. This
farms and ranches (Department of the Interior/Bureau of idea, known as “source substitution” is not new. In fact,
Reclamation, 2003). The goals of Water 2025 are to: the United Nations Economic and Social Council enun-
ciated a policy in 1958 that, “No higher quality water,
Facilitate a more forward-looking focus on water- unless there is a surplus of it, should be used for a pur-
starved areas of the country pose that can tolerate a lower grade.” Many urban, com-
mercial, and industrial uses can be met with water of
Help stretch or increase water supplies, satisfy the less than potable water quality. With respect to potable
demands of growing populations, protect environ- water sources, EPA policy states, “Because of human
mental needs, and strengthen regional, tribal, and frailties associated with protection, priority should be
local economies given to selection of the purest source” (EPA, 1976).
Therefore, when the demand exceeds the capacity of
Provide added environmental benefits to many wa- the purest source, and additional sources are unavail-
tersheds, rivers, and streams able or available only at a high cost, lower quality water
can be substituted to serve the nonpotable purposes.
Minimize water crises in critical watersheds by im- Since few areas enjoy a surplus of high quality water,
proving the environment and addressing the effects and demand often exceeds capacity, many urban resi-
of drought on important economies dential, commercial, and industrial uses can be satis-
fied with water of less than potable water quality. In many
Provide a balanced, practical approach to water instances, treated wastewater may provide the most
management for the next century economical and/or available substitute source for such
uses as irrigation of lawns, parks, roadway borders, and
Meanwhile, water reuse in the U.S. is a large and grow- medians; air conditioning and industrial cooling towers;
ing practice. An estimated 1.7 billion gallons (6.4 million stack gas scrubbing; industrial processing; toilet flush-
m3) per day of wastewater is reused, and reclaimed ing; dust control and construction; cleaning and mainte-
water use on a volume basis is growing at an estimated nance, including vehicle washing; scenic waters and foun-
15 percent per year. In 2002, Florida reclaimed 584 mgd tains; and environmental and recreational purposes.
(2.2 x 106 m3) of its wastewater while California ranked
a close second, with an estimated total of 525 mgd (2.0 The economics of source substitution with reclaimed water
x 106 m3) of reclaimed water used each day. Florida has are site-specific and dependent on the marginal costs of
an official goal of reclaiming 1 billion gallons per day by new sources of high-quality water and the costs of waste-
water treatment and disposal. Understandably, the con- reclaimed water is often distributed at a flat rate or at
struction of reclaimed water transmission and distribu- minimal cost to the users. However, where reclaimed
tion lines to existing users in large cities is expensive water is intended to be used as a water resource, me-
and disruptive. As a result, wastewater reclamation and tering is appropriate to provide an equitable method for
reuse will continue to be most attractive in serving new distributing the resource, limiting overuse, and recover-
residential, commercial, and industrial areas of a city, ing costs. In St. Petersburg, Florida, disposal was the
where the installation of dual distribution systems would original objective; however, over time the reclaimed
be far more economical than in already developed areas. water became an important resource. Meters, which were
not provided initially, are being considered to prevent
Use of reclaimed water for agricultural purposes near ur- wasting of the reclaimed water.
ban areas can also be economically attractive. Agricul-
tural users are usually willing to make long-term commit- 1.5 Treatment and Water Quality
ments, often for as long as 20 years, to use large quanti- Considerations
ties of reclaimed water instead of fresh water sources.
One potential scenario is to develop a new reclaimed wa- Water reclamation and nonpotable reuse typically re-
ter system to serve agricultural needs outside the city quire conventional water and wastewater treatment tech-
with the expectation that when urban development re- nologies that are already widely practiced and readily
places agricultural lands in time, reclaimed water use available in many countries throughout the world. When
can be shifted from agricultural to new urban develop- discussing treatment for a reuse system, the overriding
ment. concern continues to be whether the quality of the re-
claimed water is appropriate for the intended use. Higher
1.4 Pollution Abatement level uses, such as irrigation of public-access lands or
vegetables to be consumed without processing, require
While the need for additional water supply in arid and a higher level of wastewater treatment and reliability prior
semi-arid areas has been the impetus for numerous to reuse than will lower level uses, such as irrigation of
water reclamation and reuse programs, many programs forage crops and pasture. For example, in urban set-
in the U.S. were initiated in response to rigorous and tings, where there is a high potential for human expo-
costly requirements to remove nitrogen and phospho- sure to reclaimed water used for landscape irrigation,
rus for effluent discharge to surface waters. By elimi- industrial purposes, and toilet flushing, the reclaimed wa-
nating effluent discharges for all or even a portion of the ter must be clear, colorless, and odorless to ensure that
year through water reuse, a municipality may be able to it is aesthetically acceptable to the users and the public
avoid or reduce the need for the costly nutrient removal at large, as well as to assure minimum health risk. Expe-
treatment processes. For example, the South Bay Wa- rience has shown that facilities producing secondary ef-
ter Recycling Project in San Jose, California, provides fluent can become water reclamation plants with the
reclaimed water to 1.3 million area residents. By reusing addition of filtration and enhanced disinfection pro-
this water instead of releasing it to the San Francisco cesses.
Bay, San Jose has avoided a sewer moratorium that would
have had a devastating impact on the Silicon Valley A majority of the states have published treatment stan-
economy (Gritzuk, 2003). dards or guidelines for one or more types of water reuse.
Some of these states require specific treatment pro-
The purposes and practices may differ between water cesses; others impose effluent quality criteria, and some
reuse programs developed strictly for pollution abate- require both. Many states also include requirements for
ment and those developed for water resources or con- treatment reliability to prevent the distribution of any re-
servation benefits. When systems are developed chiefly claimed water that may not be adequately treated be-
for the purpose of land treatment or disposal, the objec- cause of a process upset, power outage, or equipment
tive is to treat and/or dispose of as much effluent on as failure. Dual distribution systems (i.e., reclaimed water
little land as possible; thus, application rates are often distribution systems that parallel a potable water sys-
greater than irrigation demands. On the other hand, tem) must also incorporate safeguards to prevent cross-
when the reclaimed water is considered a valuable re- connections of reclaimed water and potable water lines
source (i.e., an alternative water supply), the objective and the misuse of reclaimed water. For example, piping,
is to apply the water according to irrigation needs. valves, and hydrants are marked or color-coded (e.g.
purple pipe) to differentiate reclaimed water from potable
Differences are also apparent in the distribution of re- water. Backflow prevention devices are installed, and
claimed water for these different purposes. Where dis- hose bibs on reclaimed water lines may be prohibited to
posal is the objective, meters are difficult to justify, and preclude the likelihood of incidental human misuse. A strict
industrial pretreatment program is also necessary to en- The document has been arranged by topic, devoting sepa-
sure the reliability of the biological treatment process by rate chapters to each of the key technical, financial, le-
excluding the discharge of potentially toxic levels of pol- gal and institutional, and public involvement issues that
lutants to the sanitary sewer system. Wastewater treat- a reuse planner might face. A separate chapter has also
ment facilities receiving substantial amounts of high- been provided to discuss reuse applications outside of
strength industrial wastes may be limited in the number the U.S. These chapters are:
and type of suitable reuse applications.
Chapter 2, Types of Reuse Applications – A dis-
1.6 Overview of the Guidelines cussion of reuse for urban, industrial, agricultural,
recreational and habitat restoration/enhancement,
This document, the Guidelines for Water Reuse, is an groundwater recharge, and augmentation of potable
update of the Guidelines for Water Reuse developed supplies. Direct potable reuse is also briefly dis-
for EPA by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) and cussed.
published by EPA in 1992 (and initially in 1980). In May
2002, EPA contracted with CDM through a Cooperative Chapter 3, Technical Issues in Planning Water
Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) to Reuse Systems – An overview of the potential uses
update the EPA/USAID Guidelines for Water Reuse of reclaimed water, the sources of reclaimed water,
(EPA/625/R-92/004: Sept 1992). As with the 1992 Guide treatment requirements, seasonal storage require-
lines, a committee, made up of national and international ments, supplemental system facilities (including
experts in the field of water reclamation and related sub- conveyance and distribution), operational storage,
jects, was established to develop new text, update case and alternative disposal systems.
studies, and review interim drafts of the document. How-
ever, unlike the 1992 version, the author and reviewer Chapter 4, Water Reuse Regulations and Guide-
base was greatly expanded to include approximately 75 lines in the U.S. – A summary of existing state stan-
contributing authors and an additional 50 reviewers. Ma- dards and regulations as well as recommended
jor efforts associated with the revisions to this edition of guidelines.
the Guidelines include:
Chapter 5, Legal and Institutional Issues – An
Updating the state reuse regulations matrix and add- overview of reuse ordinances, user agreements,
ing a list of state contacts water rights, franchise law, and case law.
Updating U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) informa- Chapter 6, Funding Water Reuse Systems – A
tion on national water use and reuse practices discussion of funding and cost recovery options for
reuse system construction and operation, as well as
Expanding
coverage of indirect potable reuse is- management issues for utilities.
sues, emphasizing the results of recent studies and
practices associated with using reclaimed water to Chapter 7, Public Involvement Programs – An
augment potable supplies outline of strategies for educating and involving the
public in water reuse system planning and reclaimed
Expanding coverage of industrial reuse issues water use.
Expanding coverage of reuse projects and practices Chapter 8, Water Reuse Outside the U.S. – A
outside of the U.S summary of the issues facing reuse planners out-
side of the U.S., as well as a comprehensive review
Adding more case studies to illustrate experience in of the variety of reuse projects and systems around
all areas of water reclamation the world.
Expanding the discussion of health issues to include

emerging chemicals and pathogens
Updating the discussion of treatment technologies

applicable to water reclamation
Updating information on economics, user rates, and

project funding mechanisms
1.7 References
Department of the Interior/Bureau of Reclamation. Water

2025: Preventing Conflict and Crisis in the West. [Up-
dated 6 June 2003; cited 30 July 2003]. Available from
www.doi.gov/water2025/.
Gritzuk, M. 2003. Testimony-The Importance of Water

Reuse in the 21st Century, presented by Michael Gritzuk
to the Subcommittee on Water & Power Committee on
Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, March 27,
2003.
United Nations Secretariat – Population Division – De-

partment of Economic and Social Affairs. 2001. World
Urbanization Prospects: The 1999 Revision. ST/ESA/
SER.A/194, USA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. National

Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA 570/
9-76-003, Washington, D.C.
World Heath Organization (WHO). Water Sanitation and

Health (WSH). [Updated 2003; cited 31 July 2003]. Avail-
able from www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/waste-
water.
5
6
CHAPTER 2
Types of Reuse Applications
Chapter 2 provides detailed explanations of major re Commercial uses such as vehicle washing facilities,
use application types. These include: laundry facilities, window washing, and mixing water
for pesticides, herbicides, and liquid fertilizers
Urban
Ornamental landscape uses and decorative water fea
Industrial tures, such as fountains, reflecting pools, and water
falls
Agricultural
Dust control and concrete production for construc
Environmental and recreational tion projects
Groundwater recharge Fire protection through reclaimed water fire hydrants
Augmentation of potable supplies Toilet and urinal flushing in commercial and industrial
buildings
Quantity and quality requirements are considered for each
reuse application, as well as any special considerations Urban reuse can include systems serving large users.
necessary when reclaimed water is substituted for more Examples include parks, playgrounds, athletic fields,
traditional sources of water. Case studies of reuse appli highway medians, golf courses, and recreational facili
cations are provided in Section 2.7. Key elements of water ties. In addition, reuse systems can supply major wa-
reuse that are common to most projects (i.e., supply and ter-using industries or industrial complexes as well as a
demand, treatment requirements, storage, and distribu combination of residential, industrial, and commercial
tion) are discussed in Chapter 3. properties through “dual distribution systems.” A 2-year
field demonstration/research garden compared the im
2.1 Urban Reuse pacts of irrigation with reclaimed versus potable water
for landscape plants, soils, and irrigation components.
Urban reuse systems provide reclaimed water for various The comparison showed few significant differences;
nonpotable purposes including: however, landscape plants grew faster with reclaimed
water (Lindsey et al., 1996). But such results are not a
Irrigation of public parks and recreation centers, ath given. Elevated chlorides in the reclaimed water pro
letic fields, school yards and playing fields, high vided by the City of St. Petersburg have limited the foli
way medians and shoulders, and landscaped ar age that can be irrigated (Johnson, 1998).
eas surrounding public buildings and facilities
In dual distribution systems, the reclaimed water is deliv
Irrigation of landscaped areas surrounding single-family ered to customers through a parallel network of distribu
and multi-family residences, general wash down, and tion mains separate from the community’s potable water
other maintenance activities distribution system. The reclaimed water distribution sys
tem becomes a third water utility, in addition to wastewa
Irrigation of landscaped areas surrounding commer ter and potable water. Reclaimed water systems are op
cial, office, and industrial developments erated, maintained, and managed in a manner similar to
the potable water system. One of the oldest municipal
Irrigation of golf courses dual distribution systems in the U.S., in St. Petersburg,
Florida, has been in operation since 1977. The system tem is a requirement of the community’s land develop
provides reclaimed water for a mix of residential proper ment code. In 1984, the City of Altamonte Springs, Florida,
ties, commercial developments, industrial parks, a re enacted the requirement for developers to install reclaimed
source recovery power plant, a baseball stadium, and water lines so that all properties within a development
schools. The City of Pomona, California, first began dis are provided service. This section of the City’s land devel
tributing reclaimed water in 1973 to California Polytech opment code also stated, “The intent of the reclaimed
nic University and has since added 2 paper mills, road water system is not to duplicate the potable water sys
way landscaping, a regional park and a landfill with an tem, but rather to complement each other and thereby
energy recovery facility. provide the opportunity to reduce line sizes and looping
requirements of the potable water system” (Howard,
During the planning of an urban reuse system, a commu Needles, Tammen, and Bergendoff, 1986a).
nity must decide whether or not the reclaimed water sys
tem will be interruptible. Generally, unless reclaimed water The Irvine Ranch Water District in California studied the
is used as the only source of fire protection in a commu economic feasibility of expanding its urban dual distri
nity, an interruptible source of reclaimed water is accept bution system to provide reclaimed water to high-rise
able. For example, the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, buildings for toilet and urinal flushing. The study concluded
decided that an interruptible source of reclaimed water that the use of reclaimed water was feasible for flushing
would be acceptable, and that reclaimed water would pro toilets and urinals and priming floor drain traps for build
vide backup only for fire protection. ings of 6 stories and higher (Young and Holliman, 1990).
Following this study, an ordinance was enacted requiring
If a community determines that a non-interruptible source all new buildings over 55 feet (17 meters) high to install a
of reclaimed water is needed, then reliability, equal to dual distribution system for flushing in areas where re
that of a potable water system, must be provided to en claimed water is available (Irvine Ranch Water District,
sure a continuous flow of reclaimed water. This reliability 1990).
could be ensured through a municipality having more than
one water reclamation plant to supply the reclaimed wa The City of Avalon, California, conducted a feasibility
ter system, as well as additional storage to provide re study to assess the replacement of seawater with re
claimed water in the case of a plant upset. However, claimed water in the City’s nonpotable toilet flushing/fire
providing the reliability to produce a non-interruptible sup protection distribution system. The study determined that
ply of reclaimed water will have an associated cost in the City would save several thousand dollars per year in
crease. In some cases, such as the City of Burbank, amortized capital and operation and maintenance costs
California, reclaimed water storage tanks are the only by switching to reclaimed water (Richardson, 1998).
source of water serving an isolated fire system that is
kept separate from the potable fire service. 2.1.1 Reclaimed Water Demand
Retrofitting a developed urban area with a reclaimed wa The daily irrigation demand for reclaimed water gener
ter distribution system can be expensive. In some cases, ated by a particular urban system can be estimated from
however, the benefits of conserving potable water may an inventory of the total irrigable acreage to be served
justify the cost. For example, a water reuse system may by the reclaimed water system and the estimated weekly
be cost-effective if the reclaimed water system eliminates irrigation rates. These rates are determined by such
or forestalls the need to: factors as local soil characteristics, climatic conditions,
and type of landscaping. In some states, recommended
Obtain additional water supplies from considerable weekly irrigation rates may be available from water
distances management agencies, county or state agricultural
agents, or irrigation specialists. Reclaimed water demand
Treat a raw water supply source of poor quality (e.g., estimates must also take into account any other permit
seawater desalination) ted uses for reclaimed water within the system.
Treat wastewater to stricter surface water discharge An estimate of the daily irrigation demand for reclaimed
requirements water can also be made by evaluating local water bill
ing records. For example, in many locations, second
In developing urban areas, substantial cost savings may water meters measure the volume of potable water used
be realized by installing a dual distribution system as outside the home, primarily for irrigation. An evaluation
developments are constructed. A successful way to ac of the water billing records in Orlando, Florida, showed
complish this is to stipulate that connecting to the sys the average irrigation demand measured on the resi
dential second meter was approximately 506 gpd Figure 2-2. Potable and Nonpotable Water
(1.9 m3/d), compared to 350 gpd (1.3 m3/d) on the first Use - Monthly Historic Demand
meter, which measured the amount of water for in-house Variation, St. Petersburg, Florida
use (CDM, 2001). This data indicates that a 59 percent
reduction in residential potable water demand could be
accomplished if a dual distribution system were to pro
vide irrigation service.
Water use records can also be used to estimate the sea

sonal variation in reclaimed water demand. Figure 2-1
and Figure 2-2 show the historic monthly variation in the
potable and nonpotable water demand for the Irvine Ranch
Water District in California and St. Petersburg, Florida,
respectively. Although the seasonal variation in demand
is different between the 2 communities, both show a simi
lar trend in the seasonal variation between potable and
nonpotable demand. Even though St. Petersburg and
Irvine Ranch meet much of the demand for irrigation with
reclaimed water, the influence of these uses can still be
seen in the potable water demands.
For potential reclaimed water users, such as golf courses,

that draw irrigation water from onsite wells, an evaluation
of the permitted withdrawal rates or pumping records can
be used to estimate their reclaimed water needs.
estimated by determining the volume of water required

Figure 2-1. Potable and Nonpotable Water to maintain a desired water elevation in the impound
Use - Monthly Historic Demand ment.
Variation, Irvine Ranch Water
District, California For those systems using reclaimed water for toilet flush
ing as part of their urban reuse system, water use
records can again be used to estimate demand. Accord
ing to Grisham and Fleming (1989), toilet flushing can
account for up to 45 percent of indoor residential water
demand. In 1991, the Irvine Ranch Water District be
gan using reclaimed water for toilet flushing in high-rise
office buildings. Potable water demands in these build
ings have decreased by as much as 75 percent due to
the reclaimed water use (IRWD, 2003).
2.1.2 Reliability and Public Health

Protection
In the design of an urban reclaimed water distribution

system, the most important considerations are the reli
ability of service and protection of public health. Treat
ment to meet appropriate water quality and quantity re
In assessing the reuse needs of an urban system, de quirements and system reliability are addressed in Sec
mands for uses other than irrigation must also be con tion 3.4. The following safeguards must be considered
sidered. These demands are likely to include industrial, during the design of any dual distribution system:
commercial, and recreational uses. Demands for indus
trial users, as well as commercial users, such as car Assurance that the reclaimed water delivered to the
washes, can be estimated from water use or billing customer meets the water quality requirements for
records. Demands for recreational impoundments can be the intended uses
Prevention of improper operation of the system larly for large cities, operational storage facilities may be
located at appropriate locations in the system and/or near
Prevention of cross-connections with potable water the reuse sites. When located near the pumping facili
lines ties, ground or elevated tanks may be used; when lo
cated within the system, operational storage is generally
Prevention of improper use of nonpotable water elevated.
To avoid cross connections, all above-ground appurte Sufficient storage to accommodate diurnal flow variation
nances and equipment associated with reclaimed wa is essential to the operation of a reclaimed water sys
ter systems must be clearly marked. National color stan tem. The volume of storage required can be determined
dards have not been established, but most manufactur from the daily reclaimed water demand and supply curves.
ers, counties, and cities have adopted the color purple Reclaimed water is normally produced 24 hours per day
for reclaimed water lines. The State of Florida has ac in accordance with the diurnal flow at the water reclama
cepted Pantone 522C as the color of choice for reclaimed tion plant and may flow to ground storage to be pumped
water material designation. Florida also requires signs into the system or into a clear well for high-lift pumping to
to be posted with specific language in both English and elevated storage facilities. In order to maintain suitable
Spanish identifying the resource as nonpotable. Addi water quality, covered storage is preferred to preclude
tional designations include using the international sym biological growth and maintain chlorine residual. Refer to
bol for “Do Not Drink” on all materials, both surface and Section 3.5.2 for a discussion of operational storage.
subsurface, to minimize potential cross connections. A
more detailed discussion of distribution safeguards and Since variations in the demand for reclaimed water occur
cross connection control measures is presented in Sec seasonally, large volumes of seasonal storage may be
tion 3.6.1, Conveyance and Distribution Facilities. needed if all available reclaimed water is to be used, al
though this may not be economically practical. The se
2.1.3 Design Considerations lected location of a seasonal storage facility will also have
an effect on the design of the distribution system. In ar
Urban water reuse systems have 2 major components: eas where surface storage may be limited due to space
limitations, aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) could prove
1. Water reclamation facilities to be a viable enhancement to the system. Hillsborough
County, Florida has recovered ASR water, placed it into
2. Reclaimed water distribution system, including stor- the reuse distribution system, and is working to achieve
age and pumping facilities a target storage volume of 90 million gallons (340,700
m3) (McNeal, 2002). A detailed discussion of seasonal
2.1.3.1 Water Reclamation Facilities storage requirements is provided in Section 3.5.
Water reclamation facilities must provide the required The design of an urban distribution system is similar in
treatment to meet appropriate water quality standards many respects to a municipal potable water distribution
for the intended use. In addition to secondary treatment, system. Materials of equal quality for construction are
filtration, and disinfection are generally required for reuse recommended. System integrity should be assured;
in an urban setting. Because urban reuse usually involves however, the reliability of the system need not be as
irrigation of properties with unrestricted public access or stringent as a potable water system unless reclaimed
other types of reuse where human exposure to the re water is being used as the only source of fire protec
claimed water is likely, reclaimed water must be of a higher tion. No special measures are required to pump, de
quality than may be necessary for other reuse applica liver, and use the water. No modifications are required
tions. In cases where a single large customer needs a because reclaimed water is being used, with the excep
higher quality reclaimed water, the customer may have tion that equipment and materials must be clearly iden
to provide additional treatment onsite, as is commonly tified. For service lines in urban settings, different ma
done with potable water. Treatment requirements are pre terials may be desirable for more certain identification.
sented in Section 3.4.2.
The design of distribution facilities is based on topo
2.1.3.2 Distribution System graphical conditions as well as reclaimed water demand
requirements. If topography has wide variations, multi
Reclaimed water operational storage and high-service level systems may have to be used. Distribution mains
pumping facilities are usually located onsite at the water must be sized to provide the peak hourly demands at a
reclamation facility. However, in some cases, particu pressure adequate for the user being served. Pressure
10
requirements for a dual distribution system vary depend and a peak factor of 2.0 for agricultural and golf course
ing on the type of user being served. Pressures for irriga irrigation systems (IRWD, 1991). The peak factor for
tion systems can be as low as 10 psi (70 kPa) if addi landscape irrigation is higher because reclaimed water
tional booster pumps are provided at the point of delivery, use is restricted to between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. This re
and maximum pressures can be as high as 100 to 150 striction may not apply to agricultural or golf course use.
psi (700 to 1,000 kPa).
Generally, there will be “high-pressure” and “low-pressure”
The peak hourly rate of use, which is a critical consider users on an urban reuse system. The high-pressure us
ation in sizing the delivery pumps and distribution mains, ers receive water directly from the system at pressures
may best be determined by observing and studying lo suitable for the particular type of reuse. Examples in
cal urban practices and considering time of day and rates clude residential and landscape irrigation, industrial pro
of use by large users to be served by the system. The cesses and cooling water, car washes, fire protection,
following design peak factors have been used in de and toilet flushing in commercial and industrial buildings.
signing urban reuse systems: The low-pressure users receive reclaimed water into an
onsite storage pond to be repumped into their reuse sys
System Peaking tem. Typical low-pressure users are golf courses, parks,
Factor and condominium developments that use reclaimed wa
Altamonte Springs, Florida (HNTB, 1986a) 2.90 ter for irrigation. Other low-pressure uses include the
Apopka, Florida (Godlewski et al., 1990) 4.00 delivery of reclaimed water to landscape or recreational
Aurora, Colorado (Johns et al., 1987) 2.50 impoundments, or industrial or cooling tower sites that
Boca Raton, Florida (CDM, 1990a) 2.00 have onsite tanks for blending and/or storing water.
Irvine Ranch Water District, California
(IRWD, 1991) Typically, urban dual distribution systems operate at a
- Landscape Irrigation 6.80 minimum pressure of 50 psi (350 kPa), which will sat
- Golf Course and Agricultural Irrigation 2.00 isfy the pressure requirements for irrigation of larger
San Antonio Water System (SAWS), Texas landscaped areas such as multi-family complexes, and
(SAWS Website, 2004) 1.92 offices, commercial, and industrial parks. A minimum
Sea Pines, South Carolina 2.00 pressure of 50 psi (350 kPa) should also satisfy the re
(Hirsekorn and Ellison, 1987) quirements of car washes, toilet flushing, construction
St. Petersburg, Florida (CDM, 1987) 2.25 dust control, and some industrial uses. Based on require
ments of typical residential irrigation equipment, a mini
The wide range of peaking factors reflects the nature of mum delivery pressure of 30 psi (210 kPa) is used for
the demands being served, the location of the reuse the satisfactory operation of in-ground residential irriga
system (particularly where irrigation is the end use), and tion systems.
the experience of the design engineers. San Antonio’s
low peaking factor was achieved by requiring onsite stor For users who operate at higher pressures than other
age for customer demands greater than 100 acre-feet users on the system, additional onsite pumping will be
per year (62 gpm). These large customers were allowed required to satisfy the pressure requirements. For ex
to receive a peak flow rate based on a 24-hour delivery ample, golf course irrigation systems typically operate
of their peak month demand in July. This flat rate deliv at higher pressures (100 to 200 psi or 700 kPa to 1,400
ery and number of large irrigation customers resulted in kPa), and if directly connected to the reclaimed water
a low system peaking factor. system, will likely require a booster pump station.
Repumping may be required in high-rise office build
For reclaimed water systems that include fire protection ings using reclaimed water for toilet flushing. Addition
as part of their service, fire flow plus the maximum daily ally, some industrial users may operate at higher pres
demand should be considered when sizing the distribu sures.
tion system. This scenario is not as critical in sizing the
delivery pumps since it will likely result in less pumping The design of a reuse transmission system is usually
capacity, but is critical in sizing the distribution mains accomplished through the use of computer modeling, with
because fire flow could be required at any point in the portions of each of the sub-area distribution systems rep
system, resulting in high localized flows. resenting demand nodes in the model. The demand of
each node is determined from the irrigable acreage tribu
The Irvine Ranch Water District Water Resources Mas tary to the node, the irrigation rate, and the daily irriga
ter Plan recommends a peak hourly use factor of 6.8 tion time period. Additional demands for uses other than
when reclaimed water is used for landscape irrigation irrigation, such as fire flow protection, toilet flushing, and
11
industrial uses must also be added to the appropriate robust distribution system, the increased pipe size and
node. storage required for fire flows results in increased resi
dence time within the distribution system, and a corre
The 2 most common methods of maintaining system pres sponding potential reduction in reclaimed water quality.
sure under widely varying flow rates are: (1) constant- In Rouse Hill, an independent community near Sydney,
speed supply pumps and system elevated storage tanks, Australia, reclaimed water lines are being sized to handle
which maintain essentially consistent system pressures, fire flows, allowing potable line sizes to be reduced. Due
or (2) constant-pressure, variable-speed, high-service to a shortage of potable water supplies, the City of Cape
supply pumps, which maintain a constant system pres Coral, Florida, designed a dual distribution system sup
sure while meeting the varying demand for reclaimed water plied by reclaimed water and surface water that provides
by varying the pump speed. While each of these sys for fire protection and urban irrigation. This practice was
tems has advantages and disadvantages, either system possible due to the fact that nonpotable service, includ
will perform well and remains a matter of local choice. ing the use of reclaimed water for fire protection, was part
The dual distribution system of the City of Altamonte of the planning of the development before construction.
Springs, Florida operates with constant-speed supply However, these benefits come at the cost of elevating the
pumps and 2 elevated storage tanks, and pressures range reclaimed water system to an essential service with reli
between 55 and 60 psi (380 kPa and 410 kPa). The ur ability equal to that of the potable water system. This in
ban system of the Marin Municipal Water District, in turn, requires redundancy and emergency power with an
California, operates at a system pressure of 50 to 130 associated increase in cost. For these reasons, the City
psi (350 kPa and 900 kPa), depending upon elevation has decided to not include fire protection in its future
and distance from the point of supply, while Apopka, reclaimed water distribution systems. This decision was
Florida operates its reuse system at a pressure of 60 psi largely based on the fact that the inclusion of fire protec
(410 kPa). tion limited operations of the reclaimed water distribution
system. Specifically, the limited operations included the
The system should be designed with the flexibility to in lack of ability to reduce the operating pressure and to
stitute some form of usage control when necessary and close valves in the distribution system.
provide for the potential resulting increase in the peak
hourly demand. One such form of usage control would be In some cases, municipalities may be faced with replac
to vary the days per week that schools, parks, golf ing existing potable water distribution systems, because
courses, and residential areas are irrigated. In addition, the pipe material is contributing to water quality prob
large users, such as golf courses, will have a major im lems. In such instances, consideration could be given
pact on the shape of the reclaimed water daily demand to converting the existing network into a nonpotable dis
curve, and hence on the peak hourly demand, depending tribution system capable of providing fire protection and
upon how the water is delivered to them. The reclaimed installing a new, smaller network to handle potable de
water daily demand curve may be “flattened” and the peak mands. Such an approach would require a comprehen
hourly demand reduced if the reclaimed water is dis sive cross connection control process to ensure all con
charged to golf course ponds over a 24-hour period or nections between the potable and nonpotable system
during the daytime hours when demand for residential were severed. Color-coding of below-ground piping also
landscape irrigation is low. These methods of operation poses a challenge. To date, no community has at
can reduce peak demands, thereby reducing storage re tempted such a conversion. More often, the primary
quirements, pumping capacities, and pipe diameters. This means of fire protection is the potable water system,
in turn, can reduce construction cost. with reclaimed water systems providing an additional
source of water for fire flows. In the City of St. Peters
2.1.4 Using Reclaimed Water for Fire burg, Florida, fire protection is shared between potable
Protection and reclaimed water. In San Francisco, California, re
claimed water is part of a dual system for fire protection
Reclaimed water may be used for fire protection, but that includes high-rise buildings. Reclaimed water is also
this application requires additional design efforts (Snyder available for fire protection in the Irvine Ranch Water
et al., 2002). Urban potable water distribution systems District, California. In some cases, site-specific investi
are typically sized based on fire flow requirements. In gations may determine that reclaimed water is the most
residential areas, this can result in 6-inch diameter pipes cost-effective means of providing fire protection. The City
to support fire demands where 2-inch diameter pipes may of Livermore, California, determined that using reclaimed
be sufficient to meet potable needs. Fire flow require water for fire protection at airport hangers and a whole
ments also increase the volume of water required to be sale warehouse store would be less expensive than up
in storage at any given time. While this results in a very
12
grading the potable water system (Johnson and Crook, 1970s. The Rawhide Energy Station utility power plant in
1998). Fort Collins, Colorado, has used about 245 mgd (10,753
l/s) of reclaimed water for once through cooling of con
2.2 Industrial Reuse densers since the 1980s. The reclaimed water is added
to a body of water and the combined water is used in the
Industrial reuse has increased substantially since the once-through cooling system. After one-time use, the
early 1990s for many of the same reasons urban reuse water is returned to the original water source (lake or
has gained popularity, including water shortages and in river).
creased populations, particularly in drought areas, and
legislation regarding water conservation and environmen 2.2.1.2 Recirculating Evaporative Cooling
tal compliance. To meet this increased demand, many Water Systems
states have increased the availability of reclaimed water
to industries and have installed the necessary reclaimed Recirculating evaporative cooling water systems use wa
water distribution lines. As a result, California, Arizona, ter to absorb process heat, and then transfer the heat by
Texas, Florida, and Nevada have major industrial facili evaporation. As the cooling water is recirculated, makeup
ties using reclaimed water for cooling water and process/ water is required to replace water lost through evapora
boiler-feed requirements. Utility power plants are ideal tion. Water must also be periodically removed from the
facilities for reuse due to their large water requirements cooling water system to prevent a buildup of dissolved
for cooling, ash sluicing, rad-waste dilution, and flue gas solids in the cooling water. There are 2 common types of
scrubber requirements. Petroleum refineries, chemical evaporative cooling systems that use reclaimed water:
plants, and metal working facilities are among other in (1) cooling towers and (2) spray ponds.
dustrial facilities benefiting from reclaimed water not only
for cooling, but for process needs as well. 2.2.1.2a Cooling Tower Systems
2.2.1 Cooling Water Like all recirculating evaporative systems, cooling water
towers are designed to take advantage of the absorption
For the majority of industries, cooling water is the largest and transfer of heat through evaporation. Over the past
use of reclaimed water because advancements in water 10 years, cooling towers have increased in efficiency so
treatment technologies have allowed industries to suc that only 1.75 percent of the recirculated water is evapo
cessfully use lesser quality waters. These advancements rated for every 10 °F (6 oC) drop in process water heat,
have enabled better control of deposits, corrosion, and decreasing the need to supplement with makeup water.
biological problems often associated with the use of re Because water is evaporated, the dissolved solids and
claimed water in a concentrated cooling water system. minerals will remain in the recirculated water. These sol
ids must be removed or treated to prevent accumulation
There are 2 basic types of cooling water systems that on the cooling equipment as well as the cooling tower.
use reclaimed water: (1) once-through and (2) recirculat This removal is accomplished by discharging a portion of
ing evaporative. The recirculating evaporative cooling the cooling water, referred to as blow-down water. The
water system is the most common reclaimed water sys blow-down water is usually treated by a chemical pro
tem due to its large water use and consumption by cess and/or a filtration/softening/clarification process be
evaporation. fore disposal. Buildup of total dissolved solids can occur
within the reclamation/industrial cooling system if the blow
2.2.1.1 Once-Through Cooling Water Systems down waste stream, with increased dissolved solids, is
recirculated between the water reclamation plant and the
As implied by the name, once-through cooling water sys cooling system.
tems involve a simple pass of cooling water through heat
exchangers. There is no evaporation, and therefore, no The Curtis Stanton Energy Facility in Orlando, Florida,
consumption or concentration of the cooling water. Very receives reclaimed water from an Orange County waste
few once-through cooling systems use reclaimed water water facility for cooling water. Initially, the blow-down
and, in most instances, are confined to locations where water was planned to be returned to the wastewater facil
reuse is convenient, such as where industries are lo ity. However, this process would eventually increase the
cated near an outfall. For example, Bethlehem Steel concentration of dissolved solids in the reclaimed water
Company in Baltimore, Maryland, has used 100 mgd to a degree that it could not be used as cooling water in
(4,380 l/s) of treated wastewater effluent from Baltimore’s the future. So, as an alternative, the blow-down water is
Back River Wastewater Treatment Facility for processes crystallized at the Curtis Stanton facility and disposed of
and once-through cooling water system since the early at a landfill. The City of San Marcos, Texas, identified the
13
following indirect impacts associated with receiving the The cycles of concentration (COC) are defined as the
blow-down water back at their wastewater treatment plant: ratio of a given ion or compound in the cooling tower
reduced treatment capacity, impact to the biological pro water compared to the identical ion or compound in the
cess, and impact to the plant effluent receiving stream makeup water. For example, if the sodium chloride level
(Longoria et al., 2000). To avoid the impacts to the waste in the cooling tower water is 200 mg/l, and the same
water treatment plant, the City installed a dedicated line compound in the makeup water is 50 mg/l, then the COC
to return the blow-down water directly to the UV disinfec is 200 divided by 50, or 4, often referred to as 4 cycles.
tion chamber. Therefore, there was no loss of plant ca Industries often operate their cooling towers at widely
pacity or impact to the biological process. The City has different cycles of concentration as shown in Table 2-1.
provided increased monitoring of the effluent-receiving The reason for such variations is that the cooling water is
stream to identify any potential stream impacts. used for different applications such as wash water, ash
sluicing, process water, etc.
Cooling tower designs vary widely. Large hyperbolic con
crete structures, as shown in Figure 2-3, range from 2.2.1.2b Spray Ponds
250 to 400 feet (76 to 122 meters) tall and 150 to 200
feet (46 to 61 meters) in diameter, and are common at Spray ponds are usually small lakes or bodies of water
utility power plants. These cooling towers can recircu where warmed cooling water is directed to nozzles that
late approximately 200,000 to 500,000 gpm (12,600 to
31,500 l/s) of water and evaporate approximately 6,000 Table 2-1. Typical Cycles of Concentration
to 15,000 gpm (380 to 950 l/s) of water. (COC)
Smaller cooling towers can be rectangular boxes con

structed of wood, concrete, plastic, and/or fiberglass re Industry Typica l COC
inforced plastic with circular fan housings for each cell.
Each cell can recirculate (cool) approximately 3,000 to Utilities
5,000 gpm (190 to 315 l/s). Petroleum refineries, chemi Fossil 5-8
cal plants, steel mills, smaller utility plants, and other Nuclear 6-10
processing industries can have as many as 15 cells in a Petroleum Refineries 6-8
single cooling tower, recirculating approximately 75,000 Chemical Plants 8-10
gpm (4,700 l/s). Commercial air conditioning cooling tower Steel Mills 3-5
systems can recirculate as little as 100 gpm (6 l/s) to as
HVAC 3-5
much as 40,000 gpm (2,500 l/s).
Paper Mills 5-8
Figure 2-3. Cooling Tower
14
spray upward to mix with air. This spraying causes evapo The City of Las Vegas and Clark County Sanitation Dis
ration, but usually only produces a 3 to 8 º F drop in trict uses 90 mgd (3,940 l/s) of secondary effluent to
temperature. Spray ponds are often used by facilities, supply 35 percent of the water demand in power generat
such as utility power plants, where minimal cooling is ing stations operated by the Nevada Power Company.
needed and where the pond can also be incorporated The power company provides additional treatment con
into either decorative fountains or the air conditioning sisting of 2-stage lime softening, filtration, and chlorina
system. Reclaimed water has some application related tion prior to use as cooling tower makeup. A reclaimed
to spray ponds, usually as makeup water, since there water reservoir provides backup for the water supply. The
are often restrictions on discharging reclaimed water into Arizona Public Service 1,270-MW Palo Verde nuclear
lakes or ponds. In addition, there is a potential for foam power plant is located 55 miles from Phoenix, Arizona,
ing within the spray pond if only reclaimed water is used. and uses almost all of the City of Phoenix and area cit
For example, the City of Ft. Collins, Colorado, supplies ies’ reclaimed water at an average rate of 38,000 gpm
reclaimed water to the Platte River Power Authority for (2,400 l/s).
cooling its 250 megawatt (MW) Rawhide Energy Station.
The recirculation cooling system is a 5.2-billion-gallon In a partnership between the King County Department of
(20-million-m3) lake used to supply 170,000 gpm (107,000 Metropolitan Services (Seattle, Washington), the Boeing
l/s) to the condenser and auxiliary heat exchangers. Re Company, and Puget Sound Power and Light Company,
claimed water is treated to reduce phosphate and other a new 600,000-square-foot (55,740-m2) Customer Ser
contaminants, and then added to the freshwater lake. vice Training Center is cooled using chlorinated second
ary effluent (Lundt, 1996).
2.2.1.3 Cooling Water Quality Requirements
In Texas, The San Antonio Water System (SAWS) has a
The most frequent water quality problems in cooling wa provision in its service agreement that allows for adjust
ter systems are corrosion, biological growth, and scal ment in the reclaimed water rates for cooling tower use if
ing. These problems arise from contaminants in potable the use of reclaimed water results in fewer cycles of con
water as well as in reclaimed water, but the concentra centration.
tions of some contaminants in reclaimed water may be
higher than in potable water. Table 2-2 provides some 2.2.1.3a Corrosion Concerns
reclaimed water quality data from Florida and California.
The use of any water, including reclaimed water, as
In Burbank, California, about 5 mgd (219 l/s) of munici makeup in recirculating cooling tower systems will result
pal secondary effluent has been successfully utilized for in the concentration of dissolved solids in the heat ex
cooling water makeup in the City’s power generating plant change system. This concentration may or may not cause
since 1967. The reclaimed water is of such good quality serious corrosion of components. Three requirements
that with the addition of chlorine, acid, and corrosion in should be considered to identify the cooling system cor
hibitors, the reclaimed water quality is nearly equal to rosion potential:
that of freshwater. There are also numerous petroleum
refineries in the Los Angeles area in California that have 1. Calculation of the concentrated cooling
used reclaimed water since 1998 as 100 percent of the water quality – most often “worst” case but
makeup water for their cooling systems. also “average expected” water quality
Table 2-2. Florida and California Reclaimed Water Quality
Water Constituents Orlando Tampa Los Angeles San Francisco

Conductivity 1200 – 1800 600 – 1500 2000 – 2700 800 – 1200
Calcium Hardness 180 – 200 100 – 120 260 – 450 50 – 180
Total Alkalinity 150 – 200 60 – 100 140 – 280 30 – 120
Chlorides 20 – 40 30 – 80 250 – 350 40 – 200
Phosphate 18 – 25 10 – 20 300 – 400 20 – 70
Ammonia 10 – 15 5 – 15 4 – 20 2 –8
Suspended Solids 3–5 3–5 10 – 45 2 – 10
15
2. Identification of metal alloys in the process
However, even when freshwater is used in cooling tow
equipment that will contact cooling water–
ers, chemicals added during the treatment process can
primarily heat exchanger/cooler/condenser
contribute a considerable concentration of nutrients. It
tubing but also all other metals in the sys
is also important to have a good biological control pro
tem, including lines, water box, tube sheet,
gram in place before reclaimed water is used. Ammo
and cooling tower
nia and organics are typical nutrients found in reclaimed
water that can reduce or negate some commonly used
3. Operating conditions (temperatures and
biocides (particularly cationic charged polymers).
water flow) of the cooling tower – primarily
related to the heat exchanger tubing but also

2.2.1.3cScaling Concerns
the other metals in the system
The primary constituents for scale potential from reclaimed

Depending upon its level of treatment, the quality of re water are calcium, magnesium, sulfate, alkalinity, phos
claimed water can vary substantially. The amount of phate, silica, and fluoride.
concentration in the cooling system will also vary sub
stantially, depending on the cycles of concentration Combinations of these minerals that can produce scale
within the system. Certainly, any contamination of the in the concentrated cooling water generally include cal
cooling water through process in-leakage, atmospheric cium phosphate (most common), silica (fairly common),
conditions, or treatment chemicals will impact the water calcium sulfate (fairly common), calcium carbonate (sel
quality. dom found), calcium fluoride (seldom found), and mag
nesium silicate (seldom found).
2.2.1.3b Biological Concerns
All constituents with the potential to form scale must be
Biological concerns associated with the use of reclaimed evaluated and controlled by chemical treatment and/or
water in cooling systems include: by adjusting the cycles of concentration. Reclaimed wa
ter quality must be evaluated, along with the scaling po
Microbiological organisms that contribute to the po tential to establish the use of specific scale inhibitors.
tential for deposits and microbiologically induced Guidelines for selection and use of scale inhibitors are
corrosion (MIC) available as are scale predictive tools.
Nutrients that contribute to microbiological growth 2.2.2 Boiler Make-up Water
Microbiological organisms (bacteria, fungus, or algae) that The use of reclaimed water for boiler make-up water dif
contribute to deposits and corrosion are most often those fers little from the use of conventional public water sup
adhering to surfaces and identified as “sessile” microor ply; both require extensive additional treatment. Quality
ganisms. The deposits usually occur in low flow areas (2 requirements for boiler make-up water depend on the pres
feet per second [0.6 m/s] or less) but can stick to sur sure at which the boiler is operated. Generally, the higher
faces even at much greater flow rates (5 to 8 feet per the pressure, the higher the quality of water required.
second [1.5 to 2 m/s]). The deposits can create a variety Very high pressure (1500 psi [10,340 kPa] and above)
of concerns and problems. Deposits can interfere with boilers require make-up water of very high quality.
heat transfer and can cause corrosion directly due to
acid or corrosive by-products. Indirectly, deposits may In general, both potable water and reclaimed water used
shield metal surfaces from water treatment corrosion in for boiler water make-up must be treated to reduce the
hibitors and establish under-deposit corrosion. Deposits hardness of the boiler feed water to close to zero. Re
can grow rapidly and plug heat exchangers, cooling tower moval or control of insoluble scales of calcium and mag
film fill, or cooling tower water distribution nozzles/sprays. nesium, and control of silica and alumina, are required
since these are the principal causes of scale buildup in
Reclaimed water generally has a very low level of micro boilers. Depending on the characteristics of the reclaimed
biological organisms due to the treatment requirements water, lime treatment (including flocculation, sedimenta
prior to discharge. Chlorine levels of 2.0 mg/l (as free tion, and recarbonation) might be followed by multi-me-
chlorine) will kill most sessile microorganisms that cause dia filtration, carbon adsorption, and nitrogen removal.
corrosion or deposits in cooling systems. High-purity boiler feed water for high-pressure boilers might
also require treatment by reverse osmosis or ion ex
Nutrients that contribute to microbiological growth are change. High alkalinity may contribute to foaming, re
present in varying concentrations in reclaimed water. sulting in deposits in the superheater, reheater, or tur
16
bines. Bicarbonate alkalinity, under the influence of boiler gallons of freshwater per ton (67 to 71 liters per kilogram)
heat, may lead to the release of carbon dioxide, which is (NCASI, 2003).
a source of corrosion in steam-using equipment. The con
siderable treatment and relatively small amounts of make About a dozen pulp and paper mills use reclaimed water.
up water required normally make boiler make-up water a Less than half of these mills use treated municipal waste
poor candidate for reclaimed water. water. Tertiary treatment is generally required. The driver
is usually an insufficient source of freshwater. SAPPI’s
Since mid-2000, several refineries located in southern Enstra mill in South Africa has been using treated mu
Los Angeles, California, have used reclaimed water as nicipal wastewater since the early 1940s. In Lake Tahoe,
their primary source of boiler make-up water. Through California, the opportunities for using treated wastewater
the use of clarification, filtration, and reverse osmosis, in pulping and papermaking arose with the construction
high-quality boiler make-up water is produced that pro of tertiary wastewater facilities (Dorica et al.,1998).
vides freshwater, chemical, and energy savings. The
East Bay Municipal Utility District in California provides Some of the reasons that mills choose not to use treated
reclaimed water to the Chevron Refinery for use as boiler municipal wastewater include:
feed water. Table 2-3 shows the sampling requirements
and expected water quality for the reclaimed water. Concerns about pathogens
2.2.3 Industrial Process Water Product quality requirements that specifically pre
clude its use
The suitability of reclaimed water for use in industrial
processes depends on the particular use. For example, Possibly prohibitive conveyance costs
the electronics industry requires water of almost distilled
quality for washing circuit boards and other electronic Concerns about potentially increased corrosion, scal
components. On the other hand, the tanning industry can ing, and biofouling problems due to the high degree
use relatively low-quality water. Requirements for textiles, of internal recycling involved
pulp and paper, and metal fabricating are intermediate.
Thus, in investigating the feasibility of industrial reuse Table 2-5 shows the water quality requirements for sev
with reclaimed water, potential users must be contacted eral pulp and paper processes in New York City.
to determine the specific requirements for their process
water. 2.2.3.2 Chemical Industry
A full-scale demonstration plant, operated at Toppan The water quality requirements for the chemical industry
Electronics, in San Diego, California, has shown that re vary greatly according to production requirements. Gen
claimed water can be used for the production of circuit erally, waters in the neutral pH range (6.2 to 8.3) that are
boards (Gagliardo et al., 2002). The reclaimed water used also moderately soft with low turbidity, suspended solids
for the demonstration plant was pretreated with (SS), and silica are required; dissolved solids and chlo
microfiltration. Table 2-4 presents industrial process water ride content are generally not critical (Water Pollution
quality requirements for a variety of industries. Control Federation, 1989).
2.2.3.1 Pulp and Paper Industry 2.2.3.3 Textile Industry
The historical approach of the pulp and paper industry Waters used in textile manufacturing must be non-stain-
has been to internally recycle water to a very high de ing; hence, they must be low in turbidity, color, iron, and
gree. The pulp and paper industry has long recognized manganese. Hardness may cause curds to deposit on
the potential benefits associated with water reuse. At the the textiles and may cause problems in some of the
turn of the century, when the paper machine was being processes that use soap. Nitrates and nitrites may cause
developed, water use was approximately 150,000 gal problems in dyeing.
lons per ton (625 liters per kilogram). By the 1950s, the
water usage rate was down to 35,000 gallons per ton In 1997, a local carpet manufacturer in Irvine, California,
(145 liters per kilogram) (Wyvill et al., 1984). An industry retrofitted carpet-dyeing facilities to use reclaimed water
survey conducted in 1966 showed the total water use for year-round (IRWD, 2003). The new process is as effec
a bleached Kraft mill to be 179,000 gallons per ton (750 tive as earlier methods and is saving up to 500,000 gal
liters per kilogram) (Haynes, 1974). Modern mills approach lons of potable water per day (22 l/s).
a recycle ratio of 100 percent, using only 16,000 to 17,000
17
Table 2-3. North Richmond Water Reclamation Plant Sampling Requirements
Location1 Sample Type Parameter Frequency Target Value2
Samples Required for Compliance with RWQCB Order 90-137

Max. 2 NTU,
Turbidity, Total Chlorine
Chevron Tie-In Grab 1 2 Daily Min. 300 CT,
Residual , Total Coliform
2.2 MPN/100 ml
Reclaimed Water 3
24-hour composite Flow Continuous NA
Effluent
Samples Required for Compliance with EBMUD-Chevron Agreement; Chevron’s NPDES Permit
Filter Influent, Filter
pH, Turbidity, Free Chlorine 6.5-7.5, 2 NTU,
Effluent, Chlorine Online Analyzers3 Continuous
Residual <4.0 mg/l
Contact Basin Effluent
Reclaimed Water 24-hour
Orthophosphate (PO4) Daily <1.4 mg/l
Effluent composite
50 mg/l, 0.1 mg/l,
Calcium, Total Iron,
Reclaimed Water 24-hour 20 mg/l, 10 mg/l,
Magnesium, Silica, TSS Daily
Effluent composite <1.0 mg/l,
Ammonia (NH3-N), Chloride
<175 mg/l
Reclaimed Water
96-hour flow through Rainbow trout acute bioassay Weekly >90% Survival
Effluent
Reclaimed Water 24-hour COD, TOC (Grab), Selenium, <50 mg/l, Report
Weekly
Effluent composite Surfactants Only <1.0 mg/l
Total Chromium, Hexavalent
Reclaimed Water 24-hour Cr, Ag, As, TOC, Cd,
Monthly Report Only4
Effluent composite Cyanide, Cu, Hg, Pb, Ni, Zn –
mg/�
Reclaimed Water 24-hour
Total Phenolics, PAHs Quarterly Report Only4
Effluent composite
Reclaimed Water Oil and Grease, Total
Grab Quarterly Report Only4
Effluent Sulfides
Volatile Organics,
Reclaimed Water
Grab Halogenated Volatile Twice/Year Report Only4
Effluent
Organics
TCDD Equivalents,
Tributyltin, Halogenated
Reclaimed Water 4
Grab Volatile Organics, Once/Year Report Only
Effluent
Polychlorinated Biphenyls,
Pesticides
NOTES:
1. Chlorine residual may vary based on CT calculation (contact time x residual = 300 CT); 90 minute minimum
contact time.
2. Sample must be collected at reclaimed water metering station at pipeline tie-in to Chevron Refinery cooling
towers; 90 minute chlorine contact time requirement.
3. Readouts for online analyzers are on graphic panel in Operations Center.
4. “Report Only” parameters are used for pass-through credit for reclaimed water constituents as provided for in
Chevron’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Source: Yologe, 1996
18
Table 2-4. Industrial Process Water Quality Requirements
Pulp & Paper Textiles

Pulp & Petrochem &
Parameter* Mechanical Chemical, Chemical Sizing Scouring, Cement
Paper Coal
Piping Unbleached Suspension Bleach & Dye
Bleached
Cu - - - - 0.05 0.01 - -
Fe 0.3 1.0 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.3 0.1 2.5
Mn 0.1 0.5 0.05 0.1 - 0.05 0.01 0.5
Ca - 20 20 68 75 - - -
Mg - 12 12 19 30 - - -
Cl 1,000 200 200 500 300 - - 250

HCO3 - - - 128 - - - -
NO3 - - - 5 - - - -
SO4 - - - 100 - - - 250
SiO2 - 50 50 50 - - - 35
Hardness - 100 100 250 350 25 25 -

Alkalinity - - - 125 - - - 400
TDS - - - 1,000 1,000 100 100 600
TSS - 10 10 5 10 5 5 500
Color 30 30 10 20 - 5 5 -
pH 6-10 6-10 6-10 6.2-8.3 6-9 - - 6.5-8.5
CCE - - - - - - - -
*All values in mg/l except color and pH.
Source: Water Pollution Control Federation, 1989.
Table 2-5. Pulp and Paper Process Water Quality Requirements
(a) Chemical, Pulp and Paper,

Parameter Mechanical Pulping
Unbleached Bleached
Iron 0.3 1 0.1
Manganese 0.1 0.5 0.05
Calcium - 20 20
Magnesium - 12 12
Chlorine 1,000 200 200
Silicon Dioxide - 50 50
Hardness - 100 100
TSS - 10 10
Color 30 30 10
pH 6 - 10 6 - 10 6 - 10
(a)
All values in mg/l except color and pH.
Source: Adamski et al., 2000
19
2.2.3.4 Petroleum and Coal Figure 2-4. Comparison of Agricultural
Irrigation, Public/Domestic, and
Processes for the manufacture of petroleum and coal Total Freshwater Withdrawals
products can usually tolerate water of relatively low qual
ity. Waters generally must be in the 6 to 9 pH range and
have moderate SS of no greater than 10 mg/l.
2.3 Agricultural Reuse
This section focuses on the following specific consider

ations for implementing a water reuse program for agri
cultural irrigation:
Agricultural irrigation demands
Reclaimed water quality
Other system considerations
Technical issues common to all reuse programs are dis for approximately 48 percent of the total volume of re
cussed in Chapter 3, and the reader is referred to the claimed water used within the state (California State Water
following subsections for this information: 3.4 – Treat Resources Control Board, 2002). Figure 2-5 shows the
ment Requirements, 3.5 – Seasonal Storage Require percentages of the types of crops irrigated with reclaimed
ments, 3.6 – Supplemental Facilities (conveyance and water in California.
distribution, operational storage, and alternative dis
posal). Agricultural reuse is often included as a component in
water reuse programs for the following reasons:
Agricultural irrigation represents a significant percent
age of the total demand for freshwater. As discussed in Extremely high water demands for agricultural irriga
Chapter 3, agricultural irrigation is estimated to repre tion
sent 40 percent of the total water demand nationwide
(Solley et al., 1998). In western states with significant
agricultural production, the percentage of freshwater used
for irrigation is markedly greater. For example, Figure 2- Figure 2-5. Agricultural Reuse Categories by
4 illustrates the total daily freshwater withdrawals, public Percent in California
water supply, and agricultural irrigation usage for Mon
tana, Colorado, Idaho, and California. These states are
the top 4 consumers of water for agricultural irrigation,
which accounts for more than 80 percent of their total
water demand.
The total cropland area in the U.S. and Puerto Rico is

estimated to be approximately 431 million acres (174
million hectares), of which approximately 55 million acres
(22 million hectares) are irrigated. Worldwide, it is esti
mated that irrigation water demands exceed all other
categories of water use and make up 75 percent of the
total water usage (Solley et al., 1998).
A significant portion of existing water reuse systems sup

ply reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation. In Florida,
agricultural irrigation accounts for approximately 19 per
cent of the total volume of reclaimed water used within
the state (Florida Department of Environmental Protec
tion, 2002b). In California, agricultural irrigation accounts
20
Significant water conservation benefits associated face membranes, is a function of available soil moisture,
with reuse in agriculture season, and stage of growth. The rate of transpiration
may be further impacted by soil structure and the salt
Ability to integrate agricultural reuse with other reuse concentration in the soil water. Primary factors affecting
applications evaporation and transpiration are relative humidity, wind,
and solar radiation.
Due to saltwater intrusion to its agricultural wells, the
City of Watsonville, California, is looking to develop 4,000 Practically every state in the U.S. and Canada now has
acre-feet per year (2,480 gpm) of reuse for the irrigation access to weather information from the Internet. Califor
of strawberries, artichokes, and potentially certified or nia has developed the California Irrigation Management
ganic crops (Raines et al., 2002). Reclaimed water will Information System (CIMIS), which allows growers to
make up 25 percent of the estimated new water required obtain daily reference evapotranspiration information. Data
for irrigation. are made available for numerous locations within the state
according to regions of similar climatic conditions. State
2.3.1 Estimating Agricultural Irrigation publications provide coefficients for converting these ref
Demands erence data for use on specific crops, location, and stages
of growth. This allows users to refine irrigation schedul
Because crop water requirements vary with climatic con ing and conserve water. Other examples of weather net
ditions, the need for supplemental irrigation will vary from works are the Michigan State University Agricultural
month to month throughout the year. This seasonal varia Weather Station, the Florida Automated Weather Net
tion is a function of rainfall, temperature, crop type, stage work, and the Agri-Food Canada Lethbridge Research
of plant growth, and other factors, depending on the Centre Weather Station Network.
method of irrigation being used.
Numerous equations and methods have been developed
The supplier of reclaimed water must be able to quantify to define the evapotranspiration term. The Thornthwaite
these seasonal demands, as well as any fluctuation in and Blaney-Criddle methods of estimating evapotranspi
the reclaimed water supply, to assure that the demand ration are 2 of the most cited methods. The Blaney-Criddle
for irrigation water can be met. Unfortunately, many agri equation uses percent of daylight hours per month and
cultural users are unable to provide sufficient detail about average monthly temperature. The Thornthwaite method
irrigation demands for design purposes. This is because relies on mean monthly temperature and daytime hours.
the user’s seasonal or annual water use is seldom mea In addition to specific empirical equations, it is quite com
sured and recorded, even on land surfaces where water mon to encounter modifications to empirical equations
has been used for irrigation for a number of years. How for use under specific regional conditions. In selecting
ever, expert guidance is usually available through state an empirical method of estimating evapotranspiration, the
colleges and universities and the local soil conservation potential user is encouraged to solicit input from local
service office. agencies familiar with this subject.
To assess the feasibility of reuse, the reclaimed water 2.3.1.2 Effective Precipitation, Percolation, and
supplier must be able to reasonably estimate irrigation Surface Water Runoff Losses
demands and reclaimed water supplies. To make this
assessment in the absence of actual water use data, The approach for the beneficial reuse of reclaimed water
evapotranspiration, percolation and runoff losses, and net will, in most cases, vary significantly from land applica
irrigation must be estimated, often through the use of tion. In the case of beneficial reuse, the reclaimed water
predictive equations. is a resource to be used judiciously. The prudent alloca
tion of this resource becomes even more critical in loca
2.3.1.1 Evapotranspiration tions where reclaimed water is assigned a dollar value,
thereby becoming a commodity. Where there is a cost
Evapotranspiration is defined as water either evaporated associated with using reclaimed water, the recipient of
from the soil surface or actively transpired from the crop. reclaimed water will seek to balance the cost of supple
While the concept of evapotranspiration is easily de mental irrigation against the expected increase in crop
scribed, quantifying the term mathematically is difficult. yields to derive the maximum economic benefit. Thus,
Evaporation from the soil surface is a function of the percolation losses will be minimized because they repre
soil moisture content at or near the surface. As the top sent the loss of water available to the crop and wash
layer of soil dries, evaporation decreases. Transpira fertilizers out of the root zone. An exception to this oc
tion, the water vapor released through the plants’ sur curs when the reclaimed water has a high salt concen
21
tration and excess application is required to prevent the 2.3.2 Reclaimed Water Quality
accumulation of salts in the root zone.
The chemical constituents in reclaimed water of concern
Irrigation demand is the amount of water required to meet for agricultural irrigation are salinity, sodium, trace ele
the needs of the crop and also overcome system losses. ments, excessive chlorine residual, and nutrients. Sensi
System losses will consist of percolation, surface water tivity is generally a function of a given plant’s tolerance to
runoff, and transmission and distribution losses. In addi constituents encountered in the root zone or deposited
tion to the above losses, the application of water to crops on the foliage. Reclaimed water tends to have higher con
will include evaporative losses or losses due to wind drift. centrations of these constituents than the groundwater
These losses may be difficult to quantify individually and or surface water sources from which the water supply is
are often estimated as single system efficiency. The ac drawn.
tual efficiency of a given system will be site specific and
vary widely depending on management practices followed. The types and concentrations of constituents in reclaimed
Irrigation efficiencies typically range from 40 to 98 per wastewater depend upon the municipal water supply, the
cent (Vickers, 2001). A general range of efficiencies by influent waste streams (i.e., domestic and industrial con
type of irrigation system is shown in Table 2-6. tributions), amount and composition of infiltration in the
wastewater collection system, the wastewater treatment
Since there are no hard and fast rules for selecting the processes, and type of storage facilities. Conditions that
most appropriate method for projecting irrigation demands can have an adverse impact on reclaimed water quality
and establishing parameters for system reliability, it may may include:
be prudent to undertake several of the techniques and to
verify calculated values with available records. In the in Elevated TDS levels
terest of developing the most useful models, local irriga
tion specialists should be consulted. Industrial discharges of potentially toxic compounds
into the municipal sewer system
Saltwater (chlorides) infiltration into the sewer sys

tem in coastal areas
Table 2-6. Efficiencies for Different Irrigation Systems
Potential On-Farm Efficiency1

Irrigation System
(Percent)
Gravity (Surface)
Improved gravity2 75-85
Furrow 55-70
Flood 40-50
Sprinklers
Low energy precision application (LEPA) 80-90
Center pivot3 70-85
Sideroll 60-80
Solid set 65-80
Hand-move 60-65
Big gun 60-65
Microirrigation
Drip 80-95
1
Efficiencies shown assume appropriate irrigation system selection, correct irrigation design,
and proper management.
2
Includes tailwater recovery, precision land leveling, and surge flow systems.
3
Includes high- and low-pressure center pivot.
Source: Vickers, 2001.
22
For example, reclaimed water is used mostly for ridge Salinity reduces the water uptake in plants by lowering
and furrow irrigation at the High Hat Ranch in Sarasota, the osmotic potential of the soil. This, in turn, causes
Florida, although a portion of the reclaimed water is used the plant to use a large portion of its available energy to
for citrus irrigation via microjet irrigation. To achieve adjust the salt concentration within its tissue in order to
successful operation of the microjet irrigation system, obtain adequate water. This results in less energy avail
filters were installed to provide additional solids removal able for plants to grow. The problem is more severe in
treatment to the reclaimed water used for citrus irriga hot and dry climatic conditions because of increased
tion. water demands by plants and is even more severe when
irrigation is inadequate.
2.3.2.1 Salinity
One location where subsurface drainage is being evalu
Salinity is the single most important parameter in deter ated is in California’s San Joaquin Valley. The drainage
mining the suitability of the water to be used for irriga management process is called “integrated on-farm drain
tion. Salinity is determined by measuring the electrical age management” and involves reusing the drainage
conductivity (EC) and/or the total dissolved solids (TDS) water and using it to irrigate more salt-tolerant crops.
in the water. Estimates indicate that 23 percent of irri The final discharge water goes into solar evaporators
gated farmland has been damaged by salt (Postel, that collect the dry agricultural salt.
1999). The salinity tolerance of plants varies widely. Crops
must be chosen carefully to ensure that they can tolerate Further complications of salinity problems can occur in
the salinity of the irrigation water, and even then the soil geographic locations where the water table is high. A
must be properly drained and adequately leached to pre high water table can cause a possible upward flow of
vent salt build-up. Leaching is the deliberate over-appli- high salinity water into the root zone. Subsurface drain
cation of irrigation water in excess of crop needs to es age offers a viable solution in these locations. Older clay
tablish a downward movement of water and salt away tiles are often replaced with fabric-covered plastic pipe to
from the root zone. prevent clogging. This subsurface drainage technique is
one salinity-controlling process that requires significant
The extent of salt accumulation in the soil depends on changes in irrigation management. There are other tech
the concentration of salts in the irrigation water and the niques that require relatively minor changes including
rate at which salts are removed by leaching. Salt accu more frequent irrigation schedules, selection of more salt-
mulation can be especially detrimental during germina tolerant crops, seed placement, additional leaching, bed
tion and when plants are young (seedlings). At this stage, forming, and pre-plant irrigation.
damage can occur even with relatively low salt concen
trations. Concerns with salinity relate to possible impacts 2.3.2.2 Sodium
to the following: the soil’s osmotic potential, specific ion
toxicity, and degradation of soil physical conditions. The potential influence sodium may have on soil proper
These conditions may result in reduced plant growth ties is indicated by the sodium-adsorption-ratio (SAR),
rates, reduced yields, and, in severe cases, total crop which is based on the effect of exchangeable sodium
failure. on the physical condition of the soil. SAR expresses the
concentration of sodium in water relative to calcium and
The concentration of specific ions may cause one or more magnesium. Excessive sodium in irrigation water (when
of these trace elements to accumulate in the soil and in sodium exceeds calcium by more than a 3:1 ratio) con
the plant. Long-term build-up may result in animal and tributes to soil dispersion and structural breakdown, where
human health hazards or phytotoxicity in plants. When the finer soil particles fill many of the smaller pore spaces,
irrigating with municipal reclaimed water, the ions of most sealing the surface and greatly reducing water infiltration
concern are sodium, chloride, and boron. Household de rates (AWWA, 1997). For reclaimed water, it is recom
tergents are usually the source of boron and water soft mended that the calcium ion concentration in the SAR
eners contribute sodium and chloride. Plants vary greatly equation be adjusted for alkalinity to include a more cor
in their sensitivity to specific ion toxicity. Toxicity is par rect estimate of calcium in the soil water following irriga
ticularly detrimental when crops are irrigated with over tion, specifically adj RNa. Note that the calculated adj
head sprinklers during periods of high temperature and RNa is to be substituted for the SAR value.
low humidity. Highly saline water applied to the leaves
results in direct absorption of sodium and/or chloride and Sodium salts influence the exchangeable cation compo
can cause leaf injury. sition of the soil, which lowers the permeability and af
fects the tilth of the soil. This usually occurs within the
first few inches of the soil and is related to high sodium
23
or very low calcium content in the soil or irrigation water. in nutrient solutions or sand cultures to which the pollut
Sodium hazard does not impair the uptake of water by ant has been added. This does not mean that if the sug
plants but does impair the infiltration of water into the gested limit is exceeded that phytotoxicity will occur.
soil. The growth of plants is thus affected by an unavail Most of the elements are readily fixed or tied up in soil
ability of soil water (Tanji, 1990). Calcium and magne and accumulate with time. Repeated applications in ex
sium act as stabilizing ions in contrast to the destabiliz cess of suggested levels might induce phytotoxicity. The
ing ion, sodium, in regard to the soil structure. They off criteria for short-term use (up to 20 years) are recom
set the phenomena related to the distance of charge neu mended for fine-textured neutral and alkaline soils with
tralization for soil particles caused by excess sodium. high capacities to remove the different pollutant elements.
Sometimes the irrigation water may dissolve sufficient
calcium from calcareous soils to decrease the sodium 2.3.2.4 Chlorine Residual
hazard appreciably. Leaching and dissolving the calcium
from the soil is of little concern when irrigating with re Free chlorine residual at concentrations less than 1 mg/
claimed water because it is usually high enough in salt l usually poses no problem to plants. However, some
and calcium. Reclaimed water, however, may be high in sensitive crops may be damaged at levels as low as
sodium relative to calcium and may cause soil perme 0.05 mg/l. Some woody crops, however, may accumu-
ability problems if not properly managed. late chlorine in the tissue to toxic levels. Excessive chlo
rine has a similar leaf-burning effect as sodium and chlo
2.3.2.3 Trace Elements ride when sprayed directly on foliage. Chlorine at con
centrations greater than 5 mg/l causes severe damage
The elements of greatest concern at elevated levels are to most plants.
cadmium, copper, molybdenum, nickel, and zinc. Nickel
and zinc have visible adverse effects in plants at lower 2.3.2.5 Nutrients
concentrations than the levels harmful to animals and
humans. Zinc and nickel toxicity is reduced as pH in The nutrients most important to a crop’s needs are nitro
creases. Cadmium, copper, and molybdenum, however, gen, phosphorus, potassium, zinc, boron, and sulfur.
can be harmful to animals at concentrations too low to Reclaimed water usually contains enough of these nutri
impact plants. ents to supply a large portion of a crop’s needs.
Copper is not toxic to monogastric animals, but may be The most beneficial nutrient is nitrogen. Both the con
toxic to ruminants. However, their tolerance to copper centration and form of nitrogen need to be considered
increases as available molybdenum increases. Molyb in irrigation water. While excessive amounts of nitrogen
denum can also be toxic when available in the absence stimulate vegetative growth in most crops, it may also
of copper. Cadmium is of particular concern as it can delay maturity and reduce crop quality and quantity. The
accumulate in the food chain. It does not adversely af nitrogen in reclaimed water may not be present in con
fect ruminants due to the small amounts they ingest. centrations great enough to produce satisfactory crop
Most milk and beef products are also unaffected by live yields, and some supplemental fertilizer may be neces
stock ingestion of cadmium because the cadmium is sary. In addition, excessive nitrate in forages can cause
stored in the liver and kidneys of the animal, rather than an imbalance of nitrogen, potassium, and magnesium in
the fat or muscle tissues. grazing animals. This is a concern if the forage is used
as a primary feed source for livestock; however, such
In addition, it was found that the input of heavy metals high concentrations are usually not expected with mu
from commercial chemical fertilizer impurities was far nicipal reclaimed water.
greater than that contributed by the reclaimed water (En
gineering Science, 1987). Soils in the western U.S. may contain enough potas
sium, while many sandy soils of the southern U.S. do
Table 2-7 shows EPA’s recommended limits for con not. In either case, the addition of potassium with re
stituents in irrigation water. claimed water has little effect on crops. Phosphorus con
tained in reclaimed water is usually at too low a level to
The recommended maximum concentrations for “long meet a crop’s needs. Yet, over time, it can build up in
term continuous use on all soils” are set conservatively the soil and reduce the need for phosphorus supplemen
to include sandy soils that have low capacity to leach tation. Excessive phosphorus levels do not appear to
(and so to sequester or remove) the element in ques pose any problems to crops, but can be a problem in
tion. These maxima are below the concentrations that runoff to surface waters.
produce toxicity when the most sensitive plants are grown
24
Table 2-7. Recommended Limits for Constituents in Reclaimed Water for Irrigation
Long-Term Use Short-Term Use

Constituent Remarks
(mg/l) (mg/l)
Can cause nonproductiveness in acid soils, but soils at pH 5.5 to 8.0 will
Aluminum 5.0 20
precipitate the ion and eliminate toxicity.
Toxicity to plants varies widely, ranging from 12 mg/L for Sudan grass to less
Arsenic 0.10 2.0
than 0.05 mg/L for rice.
Toxicity to plants varies widely, ranging from 5 mg/L for kale to 0.5 mg/L for
Beryllium 0.10 0.5
bush beans.
Essential to plant growth, with optimum yields for many obtained at a few-
tenths mg/L in nutrient solutions. Toxic to many sensitive plants (e.g., citrus) at
Boron 0.75 2.0
1 mg/L. Usually sufficient quantities in reclaimed water to correct soil
deficiencies. Most grasses are relatively tolerant at 2.0 to 10 mg/L.
Toxic to beans, beets, and turnips at concentrations as low as 0.1 mg/L in
Cadmium 0.01 0.05
nutrient solution. Conservative limits recommended.
Not generally recognized as an essential growth element. Conservative limits
Chromium 0.1 1.0
recommended due to lack of knowledge on toxicity to plants.
Toxic to tomato plants at 0.1 mg/L in nutrient solution. Tends to be inactivated
Cobalt 0.05 5.0
by neutral and alkaline soils.
Copper 0.2 5.0 Toxic to a number of plants at 0.1 to 1.0 mg/L in nutrient solution.
Fluoride 1.0 15.0 Inactivated by neutral and alkaline soils.
Not toxic to plants in aerated soils, but can contribute to soil acidification and
Iron 5.0 20.0
loss of essential phosphorus and molybdenum.
Lead 5.0 10.0 Can inhibit plant cell growth at very high concentrations.
Tolerated by most crops at concentrations up to 5 mg/L; mobile in soil. Toxic to
Lithium 2.5 2.5
citrus at low doses - recommended limit is 0.075 mg/L.
Manganese 0.2 10.0 Toxic to a number of crops at a few-tenths to a few mg/L in acidic soils.
Nontoxic to plants at normal concentrations in soil and water. Can be toxic to
Molybdenum 0.01 0.05
livestock if forage is grown in soils with high levels of available molybdenum.
Toxic to a number of plants at 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L; reduced toxicity at neutral or
Nickel 0.2 2.0
alkaline pH.
Toxic to plants at low concentrations and to livestock if forage is grown in soils
Selenium 0.02 0.02
with low levels of selenium.
Tin, Tungsten, & Titanium - - Effectively excluded by plants; specific tolerance levels unknown
Vanadium 0.1 1.0 Toxic to many plants at relatively low concentrations.
Toxic to many plants at widely varying concentrations; reduced toxicity at
Zinc 2.0 10.0
increased pH (6 or above) and in fine-textured or organic soils.
Constituent Recommended Limit Remarks
Most effects of pH on plant growth are indirect (e.g., pH effects on heavy
pH 6.0
metals’ toxicity described above).
Below 500 mg/L, no detrimental effects are usually noticed. Between 500 and
1,000 mg/L, TDS in irrigation water can affect sensitive plants. At 1,000 to
TDS 500 - 2,000 mg/l 2,000 mg/L, TDS levels can affect many crops and careful management
practices should be followed. Above 2,000 mg/L, water can be used regularly
only for tolerant plants on permeable soils.
Concentrations greater than 5 mg/l causes severe damage to most plants.

Free Chlorine Residual <1 mg/l
Some sensitive plants may be damaged at levels as low as 0.05 mg/l.
Source: Adapted from Rowe and Abdel-Magid, 1995.
Numerous site-specific studies have been conducted re Irrigation with filtered effluent (FE) or Title-22 efflu
garding the potential water quality concerns associated ent (T-22) appears to be as safe as well water.
with reuse irrigation. The overall conclusions from the
Monterey (California) Wastewater Reclamation Study for Few statistically significant differences were found
Agriculture (Jaques, 1997) are as follows: in soil or plant parameters, and none were found to
25
be attributable to different types of water. None of Reliability in quality involves providing the appropriate
the differences had important implications for public treatment for the intended use, with special consider
health. ation of crop sensitivities and potential toxicity effects
of reclaimed water constituents (See Sections 3.4 and
Yields of annual crops were often significantly higher 2.3.2). Reliability in quantity involves balancing irrigation
with reclaimed water. supply with demand. This is largely accomplished by pro
viding sufficient operational and seasonal storage facili
No viruses were detected in any of the reclaimed ties (See Sections 3.5 and 3.5.2.) It is also necessary to
waters, although viruses were often detected in the ensure that the irrigation system itself can reliably ac
secondary effluent prior to the reclamation process. cept the intended supply to minimize the need for dis
charge or alternate disposal.
The T-22 process was somewhat more efficient than
the FE process in removing viruses when the influ 2.3.3.2 Site Use Control
ent was seeded at high levels of virus concentra
tion. However, both processes demonstrated the Many states require a buffer zone around areas irrigated
ability to remove more than 5 logs of viruses during with reclaimed water. The size of this buffer zone is of
the seeding experiments. (Jaques, 1997) ten associated with the level of treatment the reclaimed
water has received and the means of application. Addi
This and other investigations suggest that reclaimed tional controls may include restrictions on the times that
water is suitable for most agricultural irrigation needs. irrigation can take place and restrictions on the access
to the irrigated site. Such use area controls may require
2.3.3 Other System Considerations modification to existing farm practices and limit the use
of reclaimed water to areas where required buffer zones
In addition to irrigation supply and demand and reclaimed cannot be provided. See Chapter 4 for a discussion of
water quality requirements, there are other considerations the different buffer zones and use controls specified in
specific to agricultural water reuse that must be ad state regulations. Signs specifying that reclaimed water
dressed. Both the user and supplier of reclaimed water is being used may be required to prevent accidental con
may have to consider modifications in current practice tact or ingestion.
that may be required to use reclaimed water for agricul
tural irrigation. The extent to which current irrigation prac 2.3.3.3 Monitoring Requirements
tices must be modified to make beneficial use of reclaimed
water will vary on a case-by-case basis. Important con Monitoring requirements for reclaimed water use in agri
siderations include: culture differ by state (See Chapter 4). In most cases,
the supplier will be required to sample the reclaimed
System reliability water quality at specific intervals for specific constitu
ents. Sampling may be required at the water reclamation
Site use control plant and, in some cases, in the distribution system.
Monitoring requirements Groundwater monitoring is often required at the agricul

tural site, with the extent depending on the reclaimed
Runoff controls water quality and the hydrogeology of the site. Ground
water monitoring programs may be as simple as a se
Marketing incentives ries of surficial wells to a complex arrangement of wells
sampling at various depths. Monitoring must be consid
Irrigation equipment ered in estimating the capital and operating costs of the
reuse system, and a complete understanding of moni
2.3.3.1 System Reliability toring requirements is needed as part of any cost/benefit
analysis.
System reliability involves 2 basic issues. First, as in
any reuse project that is implemented to reduce or elimi 2.3.3.4 Runoff Controls
nate surface water discharge, the treatment and distribu
tion facilities must operate reliably to meet permit condi Some irrigation practices, such as flood irrigation, result
tions. Second, the supply of reclaimed water to the agri in a discharge of irrigation water from the site (tail water).
cultural user must be reliable in quality and quantity for Regulatory restrictions of this discharge may be few or
successful use in a farming operation. none when using surface water or groundwater sources;
26
however, when reclaimed water is used, runoff controls plete or partial clogging of emitters. Close, regular in
may be required to prevent discharge or a National Pol spections of emitters are required to detect emitter clog
lutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit may ging. In-line filters of an 80 to 200 mesh are typically
be required for a surface water discharge. used to minimize clogging. In addition to clogging, bio
logical growth within the transmission lines and at the
2.3.3.5 Marketing Incentives emitter discharge may be increased by nutrients in the
reclaimed water. Due to low volume application rates
In many cases, an existing agricultural site will have an with micro-irrigation, salts may accumulate at the wet
established source of irrigation water, which has been ted perimeter of the plants and then be released at toxic
developed by the user at some expense (e.g., engineer levels to the crop when leached via rainfall.
ing, permitting, and construction). In some instances,
the user may be reluctant to abandon these facilities for 2.4 Environmental and Recreational
the opportunity to use reclaimed water. Reclaimed wa Reuse
ter use must then be economically competitive with ex
isting irrigation practices or must provide some other Environmental reuse includes wetland enhancement and
benefits. For example, in arid climates or drought condi restoration, creation of wetlands to serve as wildlife habi
tions where potable irrigation is restricted for water con tat and refuges, and stream augmentation. Uses of re
servation purposes, reclaimed water could be offered as claimed water for recreational purposes range from land
a dependable source of irrigation. Reclaimed water may scape impoundments, water hazards on golf courses,
also be of better quality than that water currently avail to full-scale development of water-based recreational
able to the farmer, and the nutrients may provide some impoundments, incidental contact (fishing and boating)
fertilizer benefit. In some instances, the supplier of re and full body contact (swimming and wading). As with
claimed water may find it cost effective to subsidize re any form of reuse, the development of recreational and
claimed water rates to agricultural users if reuse is allow environmental water reuse projects will be a function of
ing the supplier to avoid higher treatment costs associ a water demand coupled with a cost-effective source of
ated with alternative means of disposal. suitable quality reclaimed water.
2.3.3.6 Irrigation Equipment As discussed in Chapter 4, many states have regula

tions that specifically address recreational and environ
By and large, few changes in equipment are required to mental uses of reclaimed water. For example,
use reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation. However, California’s recommended treatment train for each type
some irrigation systems do require special considerations. of recreational water reuse is linked to the degree of
body contact in that use (that is, to what degree swim
Surface irrigation systems (ridge and furrow, graded bor ming and wading are likely). Secondary treatment and
ders) normally result in the discharge of a portion of the disinfection to 2.2 total coliforms/100 ml average is re
irrigation water from the site. Where reclaimed water dis quired for recreational water bodies where fishing, boat
charge is not permitted, some method of tail water return ing, and other non-body contact activities are permitted.
or pump-back may be required. For nonrestricted recreational use that includes wading
and swimming, treatment of secondary effluent is to be
In sprinkler systems, dissolved salts and particulate followed by coagulation, filtration, and disinfection to
matter may cause clogging, depending on the concen achieve 2.2 total coliforms/100 ml and a maximum of 23
tration of these constituents as well as the nozzle size. total coliforms/100 ml in any one sample taken during a
Because water droplets or aerosols from sprinkler sys 30-day period.
tems are subject to wind drift, the use of reclaimed wa
ter may necessitate the establishment of buffer zones In California, approximately 10 percent (47.6 mgd) (2080
around the irrigated area. In some types of systems (i.e., l/s) of the total reclaimed water use within the state was
center pivots), the sprinkler nozzles may be dropped associated with recreational and environmental reuse in
closer to the ground to reduce aerosol drift and thus mini 2000 (California State Water Resources Control Board,
mize the buffer requirements. In addition, some regula 2002). In Florida, approximately 6 percent (35 mgd or
tory agencies restrict the use of sprinkler irrigation for 1530 l/s) of the reclaimed water currently produced is
crops to be eaten raw, because it results in the direct being used for environmental enhancements, all for wet
contact of reclaimed water with the fruit. land enhancement and restoration (Florida Department
of Environmental Protection, 2002). In Florida, from 1986
When reclaimed water is used in a micro-irrigation sys to 2001, there was a 53 percent increase (18.5 mgd to 35
tem, a good filtration system is required to prevent com mgd or 810 l/s to 1530 l/s) in the reuse flow used for
27
environmental enhancements (wetland enhancement and For wetlands that have been altered hydrologically, ap
restoration). plication of reclaimed water serves to restore and en
hance the wetlands. New wetlands can be created through
Two examples of large-scale environmental and recre application of reclaimed water, resulting in a net gain in
ational reuse projects are the City of West Palm Beach, wetland acreage and functions. In addition, man-made
Florida, wetlands-based water reclamation project (see and restored wetlands can be designed and managed to
case study 2.7.17) and the Eastern Municipal Water maximize habitat diversity within the landscape.
District multipurpose constructed wetlands in Riverside
County, California. The application of reclaimed water to wetlands provides
compatible uses. Wetlands are often able to enhance
The remainder of this section provides an overview of the water quality of the reclaimed water without creat
the following environmental and recreational uses: ing undesirable impacts to the wetlands system. This,
in turn, enhances downstream natural water systems
Natural and man-made wetlands and provides aquifer recharge.
Recreational and aesthetic impoundments A great deal of research has been performed document
ing the ability of wetlands, both natural and constructed,
Stream augmentation to provide consistent and reliable water quality improve
ment. With proper execution of design and construction
The objectives of these reuse projects are typically to elements, constructed wetlands exhibit characteristics
create an environment in which wildlife can thrive and/ that are similar to natural wetlands, in that they support
or develop an area of enhanced recreational or aes similar vegetation and microbes to assimilate pollutants.
thetic value to the community through the use of re In addition, constructed wetlands provide wildlife habi
claimed water. tat and environmental benefits that are similar to natu
ral wetlands. Constructed wetlands are effective in the
2.4.1 Natural and Man-made Wetlands treatment of BOD, TSS, nitrogen, phosphorus, patho
gens, metals, sulfates, organics, and other toxic sub
Over the past 200 years, approximately 50 percent of stances.
the wetlands in the continental United States have been
destroyed for such diverse uses as agriculture, mining, Water quality enhancement is provided by transforma
forestry, and urbanization. Wetlands provide many worth tion and/or storage of specific constituents within the
while functions, including flood attenuation, wildlife and wetland. The maximum contact of reclaimed water within
waterfowl habitat, productivity to support food chains, the wetland will ensure maximum treatment assimilation
aquifer recharge, and water quality enhancement. In ad and storage. This is due to the nature of these processes.
dition, the maintenance of wetlands in the landscape If optimum conditions are maintained, nitrogen and BOD
mosaic is important for the regional hydrologic balance. assimilation in wetlands will occur indefinitely, as they
Wetlands naturally provide water conservation by regu are primarily controlled by microbial processes and gen
lating the rate of evapotranspiration and, in some cases, erate gaseous end products. In contrast, phosphorus
by providing aquifer recharge. The deliberate application assimilation in wetlands is finite and is related to the
of reclaimed water to wetlands can provide a beneficial adsorption capacity of the soil and long-term storage within
use, and therefore reuse, by fulfilling any of the following the system. The wetland can provide additional water
objectives: quality enhancement (polishing) to the reclaimed water
product.
1. To create, restore, and/or enhance wetlands
systems
In most reclaimed water wetland projects, the primary
intent is to provide additional treatment of effluent prior to
2. To provide additional treatment of reclaimed
discharge from the wetland. However, this focus does not
water prior to discharge to a receiving water
negate the need for design considerations that will maxi
body
mize wildlife habitats, and thereby provide important an
cillary benefits. For constructed wetlands, appropriate
3. To provide a wet weather disposal alternative
plant species should be selected based on the type of
for a water reuse system (See Section
wetland to be constructed as well as the habitat goals.
3.6.4.)
Treatment performance information is available regarding
certain wetland species as well as recommendations re
garding species selection (Cronk and Fennessy, 2001).
28
Wetlands do not provide treatment of total suspended downstream surface waters. A wetlands application sys
solids. In addition, a salinity evaluation may be neces tem was selected because the wetlands: (1) serve as
sary because effluent with a high salt content may cause nutrient sinks and buffer zones, (2) have aesthetic and
impacts to wetland vegetation. In some cases, salt tol environmental benefits, and (3) can provide cost-effec-
erant vegetation may be appropriate. Design consider tive treatment through natural systems. The Arcata wet
ations will need to balance the hydraulic and constituent lands system was also designed to function as a wildlife
loadings with impacts to the wetland. Impacts to ground habitat. The Arcata wetlands system, consisting of three
water quality should also be evaluated. 10-acre (4-hectare) marshes, has attracted more than
200 species of birds, provided a fish hatchery for salmon,
The benefits of a wetland treatment system include: and contributed directly to the development of the Arcata
Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary (Gearheart, 1988).
Improve water quality through the use of natural
systems Due to a 20-mgd (877-L/s) expansion of the City of Or
lando, Florida, Iron Bridge Regional Water Pollution
Protect downstream receiving waters Control Facility in 1981, a wetland system was created
to handle the additional flow. Since 1981, reclaimed wa
Provide wetland creation, restoration, or enhance ter from the Iron Bridge plant has been pumped 16 miles
ment (20 kilometers) to a wetland that was created by berming
approximately 1,200 acres (480 hectares) of improved
Provide wildlife and waterfowl habitat pasture. The system is further divided into smaller cells
for flow and depth management. The wetland consists of
Offer relatively low operating and maintenance
3 major vegetative areas. The first area, approximately
costs
410 acres (166 hectares), is a deep marsh consisting
primarily of cattails and bulrush with nutrient removal as
A reasonable development cost the primary function. The second area consists of 380
acres (154 hectares) of a mixed marsh composed of over
Maintain “green space” 60 submergent and emergent herbaceous species used
for nutrient removal and wildlife habitat. The final area,
Attenuate peak flows 400 acres (162 hectares) of hardwood swamp, consists
of a variety of tree species providing nutrient removal
One component of a “treatment train”; can be
and wildlife habitat. The reclaimed water then flows
used in areas with high water table and/or low
through approximately 600 acres (240 hectares) of natu
permeable soils
ral wetland prior to discharge to the St. Johns River (Jack
son, 1989).
Aesthetic and educational opportunities
EPA (1999a) indicated that little effort had been made to
Potential limitations of a wetland treatment systems collect or organize information concerning the habitat func
include: tions of treatment wetlands. Therefore, the Treatment
Wetland Habitat and Wildlife Use Assessment document
Significant land area requirements (U.S. EPA, 1999a) was prepared. The document was the
first comprehensive effort to assemble wide-ranging in
May have limited application in urban settings formation concerning the habitat and wildlife use data
from surface flow treatment wetlands. The data have
Potential for short-circuiting, which will lead to
been gathered into an electronic format built upon the
poor performance
previous existing North American Treatment Wetland
Database funded by the EPA. The report indicates that
Potential for nuisance vegetation and algae both natural and constructed treatment wetlands have
substantial plant communities and wildlife populations.
May need to be lined to maintain wetland
There are potentially harmful substances in the water,
hydroperiod
sediments, and biological tissues of treatment wetlands.
However, contaminant concentration levels are gener
A number of cities have developed wetlands enhance ally below published action levels. There is apparently
ment systems to provide wildlife habitats as well as treat no documentation indicating that harm has occurred in
ment. In Arcata, California, one of the main goals of a any wetland intentionally designed to improve water
city wetland project was to enhance the beneficial use of quality.
29
The Yelm, Washington, project in Cochrane Memorial ing in odors, an unsightly appearance, and eutrophic con
Park, is an aesthetically pleasing 8-acre (3-hectare) city ditions.
park featuring constructed surface and submerged wet
lands designed to polish the reclaimed water prior to re Reclaimed water impoundments can be easily incorpo
charging groundwater. In the center of the park, a fish rated into urban developments. For example, landscap
pond uses the water to raise and maintain rainbow trout ing plans for golf courses and residential developments
for catch and release (City of Yelm, 2003). commonly integrate water traps or ponds. These same
water bodies may also serve as storage facilities for ir
A number of states including Florida, South Dakota, and rigation water within the site.
Washington, provide regulations to specifically address
the use of reclaimed water in wetlands systems. Where In Lubbock, Texas, approximately 4 mgd (175 l/s) of
specific regulations are absent, wetlands have been con reclaimed water is used for recreational lakes in the
structed on a case-by-case basis. In addition to state Yellowhouse Canyon Lakes Park (Water Pollution Con
requirements, natural wetlands, which are considered trol Federation, 1989). The canyon, which was formerly
waters of the U.S., are protected under EPA’s NPDES used as a dump, was restored through the use of re
Permit and Water Quality Standards programs. The quality claimed water to provide water-oriented recreational
of reclaimed water entering natural wetlands is regulated activities. Four lakes, which include man-made water
by federal, state and local agencies and must be treated falls, are used for fishing, boating, and water skiing; how
to at least secondary treatment levels or greater to meet ever, swimming is restricted.
water quality standards. Constructed wetlands, on the
other hand, which are built and operated for the purpose Lakeside Lake is a 14-acre (6-hectare) urban impound
of treatment only, are not considered waters of the U.S. ment in Tucson, Arizona. The lake was constructed in
the 1970s in the Atterbury Wash to provide fishing, boat
Wetland treatment technology, using free water surface ing, and other recreational opportunities. The lake is lined
wetlands, has been under development, with varying suc with soil/cement layers and has a concrete shelf extend
cess, for nearly 30 years in the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 1999b). ing 6 feet (2 meters) from the shore around the perim
Several key documents that summarize the available in eter. A berm crosses the lake from east to west, creating
formation and should be used to assist in the design of a north and south bay. The Arizona Game and Fish De
wetland treatment systems are: Treatment Wetlands partment (AGFD) stock the lake with channel catfish,
(Kadlec and Kngith, 1996), Free Water Surface Wetlands rainbow trout, bluegill, redear and hybrid sunfish, crap
for Wastewater Treatment (U.S. EPA, 1999b), Con pie, and large mouth bass on a seasonal basis. The lake
structed Wetlands for Pollution Control: Process, Perfor was initially supplied by groundwater and surface runoff
mance, Design and Operation (IWA, 2000), and the Wa but began receiving reclaimed water from the Roger Road
ter Environment Federation Manual of Practice FD-16 Treatment Plant in 1990 (up to 45,000 gpd) (170 m3/d). A
Second Edition. Natural Systems for Wastewater Treat mechanical diffuser was installed on the lake bottom in
ment, Chapter 9; Wetland Systems, (WEF, 2001). 1992 to improve dissolved oxygen concentrations
(PBS&J, 1992).
2.4.2 Recreational and Aesthetic
Impoundments 2.4.3 Stream Augmentation
For the purposes of this discussion, an impoundment is Stream augmentation is differentiated from a surface
defined as a man-made water body. The use of re water discharge in that augmentation seeks to accom
claimed water to augment natural water bodies is dis plish a beneficial end, whereas discharge is primarily
cussed in Section 3.4.3. Impoundments may serve a for disposal. Stream augmentation may be desirable to
variety of functions from aesthetic, non-contact uses, to maintain stream flows and to enhance the aquatic and
boating and fishing, as well as swimming. As with other wildlife habitat as well as to maintain the aesthetic value
uses of reclaimed water, the required level of treatment of the water courses. This may be necessary in loca
will vary with the intended use of the water. As the po tions where a significant volume of water is drawn for
tential for human contact increases, the required treat potable or other uses, largely reducing the downstream
ment levels increase. The appearance of the reclaimed volume of water in the river.
water must also be considered when used for impound
ments, and treatment for nutrient removal may be re As with impoundments, water quality requirements for
quired as a means of controlling algae. Without nutrient stream augmentation will be based on the designated
control, there is a high potential for algae blooms, result use of the stream as well as the aim to maintain an ac
ceptable appearance. In addition, there may be an em
30
phasis on creating a product that can sustain aquatic agement system. The treatment achieved in the subsur
life. face environment may eliminate the need for costly ad
vanced wastewater treatment processes. The ability to
The San Antonio Water System in Texas releases its implement such treatment systems will depend on the
high quality (Type 1) reclaimed water to the San Antonio method of recharge, hydrogeological conditions, require
River. Reclaimed water is used instead of pumped ments of the downgradient users, as well as other fac
groundwater to sustain the river flow through a city park, tors.
zoo, and downtown river walk. A second stream aug
mentation flows to Salado Creek, where reclaimed wa Aquifers provide a natural mechanism for storage and
ter replaces the flow from an abandoned artesian well. subsurface transmission of reclaimed water. Irrigation
Also, reclaimed water is used in a decorative fountain demands for reclaimed water are often seasonal, re
at the City Convention Center with the fountain discharg quiring either large storage facilities or alternative means
ing into a dead-end channel of the downtown river walk of disposal when demands are low. In addition, suitable
waterway. sites for surface storage facilities may not be available,
economically feasible, or environmentally acceptable.
Several agencies in southern California are evaluating Groundwater recharge eliminates the need for surface
the process in which reclaimed water would be delivered storage facilities and the attendant problems associated
to streams in order to maintain a constant flow of high- with uncovered surface reservoirs, such as evapora
quality water for the enhancement of aquatic and wildlife tion losses, algae blooms resulting in deterioration of
habitat as well as to maintain the aesthetic value of the water quality, and creation of odors. Aquifer storage and
streams. recovery (ASR) systems are being used in a number of
states to overcome seasonal imbalances in both potable
2.5 Groundwater Recharge and reclaimed water projects. The tremendous volumes
of storage potentially available in ASR systems means
This section addresses planned groundwater recharge that a greater percentage of the resource, be it raw water
using reclaimed water with the specific intent to replen or reclaimed water, can be captured for beneficial use.
ish groundwater. Although practices such as irrigation
may contribute to groundwater augmentation, the replen While there are obvious advantages associated with
ishment is an incidental byproduct of the primary activity groundwater recharge, possible limitations include
and is not discussed in this section. (Oaksford, 1985):
The purposes of groundwater recharge using reclaimed Extensive land areas may be needed for spreading
water may be: (1) to establish saltwater intrusion barriers basins.
in coastal aquifers, (2) to provide further treatment for
future reuse, (3) to augment potable or nonpotable aqui Costs for treatment, water quality monitoring, and
fers, (4) to provide storage of reclaimed water for subse injection/infiltration facilities operations may be pro
quent retrieval and reuse, or (5) to control or prevent ground hibitive.
subsidence.
Recharge may increase the danger of aquifer con
Pumping of aquifers in coastal areas may result in salt tamination due to inadequate or inconsistent pretreat
water intrusion, making them unsuitable as sources for ment.
potable supply or for other uses where high salt levels
are intolerable. A battery of injection wells can be used Not all recharged water may be recoverable due to
to create a hydraulic barrier to maintain intrusion con movement beyond the extraction well capture zone
trol. Reclaimed water can be injected directly into an or mixing with poor-quality groundwater.
aquifer to maintain a seaward gradient and thus pre
vent inland subsurface saltwater intrusion. This may al The area required for operation and maintenance of a
low for the additional development of inland withdrawals groundwater supply system (including the ground
or simply the protection of existing withdrawals. water reservoir itself) is generally larger than that
required for a surface water supply system. The fact
Infiltration and percolation of reclaimed water takes ad that the aquifer does not compete with overlying land
vantage of the natural removal mechanisms within soils, uses provides a significant advantage. However, this
including biodegradation and filtration, thus providing ad reservoir cannot adversely impact existing uses of
ditional in situ treatment of reclaimed water and addi the aquifer.
tional treatment reliability to the overall wastewater man
31
Figure 2-6. Three Engineered Methods for Groundwater Recharge
Hydrogeologic uncertainties, such as transmissiv quire water quality comparable to drinking water, if po
ity, faulting, and aquifer geometry, may reduce the table aquifers are affected. Low-technology treatment
effectiveness of the recharge project in meeting wa options for surface spreading basins include primary and
ter supply demand. secondary wastewater treatment with the possible use
of lagoons and natural systems. Reverse osmosis is
Inadequate institutional arrangements or groundwa commonly used for direct injection systems to prevent
ter laws may not protect water rights and may present clogging, however, some ASR systems have been oper
liability and other legal problems. ating successfully without membrane treatment when wa
ter was stored for irrigation. The cost of direct injection
The degree to which these factors might limit implemen systems can be greatly reduced from the numbers pre
tation of a groundwater recharge system is a function of sented in Table 2-8 if the aquifer is shallow and
the severity of the site specific impediments balanced nonpotable. Vadose zone injection wells are a relatively
against the need to protect existing water sources or new technology, and there is uncertainty over mainte
expand raw water supplies. nance methods and requirements; however, it is clear
that the removal of solids and disinfection is necessary
2.5.1 Methods of Groundwater Recharge to prevent clogging.
Groundwater recharge can be accomplished by surface 2.5.1.1 Surface Spreading

spreading, vadose zone injection wells, or direct injec
tion. These methods of groundwater recharge use more Surface spreading is a direct method of recharge whereby
advanced engineered systems as illustrated in Figure the water moves from the land surface to the aquifer by
2-6 (Fox, 1999). With the exception of direct injection, infiltration and percolation through the soil matrix.
all engineered methods require the existence of an un
saturated aquifer. An ideal soil for recharge by surface spreading would have
the following characteristics:
Table 2-8 provides a comparison of major engineering
factors that should be considered when installing a Rapid infiltration rates and transmission of water
groundwater recharge system, including the availability
and cost of land for recharge basins (Fox, 1999). If such No layers that restrict the movement of water to the
costs are excessive, the ability to implement injection desired unconfined aquifer
wells adjacent to the reclaimed water source tends to
decrease the cost of conveyance systems for injection No expanding-contracting clays that create cracks
wells. Surface spreading basins require the lowest de when dried that would allow the reclaimed water to
gree of pretreatment while direct injection systems re
32
Table 2-8. Comparison of Major Engineering Factors for Engineered Groundwater Recharge
Vadose Zone Direct Injection

Recharge Basins
Injection Wells Wells
Aquifer Type Unconfined Unconfined Unconfined or Confined
Pretreatment Requirements Low Technology Removal of Solids High Technology
$25,000-75,000 $500,000-1,500,000
Estimated Major Capital Costs (US$) Land and Distribution System
per well per well
3 3
3 1,000-3,000 m /d 2,000-6,000 m /d
Capacity 100-20,000 m /hectare-day
per well per well
Drying and Disinfection and
Maintenance Requirements Drying and Scraping
Disinfection Flow Reversal
Estimated Life Cycle >100 Years 5-20 Years 25-50 Years
Vadose Zone and

Soil AquiferTreatment Vadose Zone and Saturated Zone Saturated Zone
Saturated Zone
bypass the soil during the initial stages of the flood Physical character and permeability of subsurface
ing period deposits
Sufficient clay and/or organic-rich sediment contents Depth to groundwater

to provide large capacities to adsorb trace elements
and heavy metals, as well as provide surfaces on Specific yield, thickness of deposits, and position
which microorganisms can decompose organic con and allowable fluctuation of the water table
stituents. The cation exchange capacity of clays also
provides the capacity to remove ammonium ions and Transmissivity, hydraulic gradients, and pattern of
allow for subsequent nitrogen transformations pumping
A supply of available carbon that would favor rapid Structural and lithologic barriers to both vertical and
denitrification during flooding periods, support an ac lateral movement of groundwater
tive microbial population to compete with pathogens,
and favor rapid decomposition of introduced organics Oxidation state of groundwater throughout the receiv
(Fox, 2002; Medema and Stuyfsand, 2002; Skjemstad ing aquifer
et al., 2002). BOD and TOC in the reclaimed water
will also be a carbon source Although reclaimed water typically receives secondary
treatment including disinfection and filtration prior to sur
Unfortunately, some of these characteristics are mutu face spreading, other treatment processes are sometimes
ally exclusive, and the importance of each soil character provided. Depending on the ultimate use of the water
istic is dependent on the purpose of the recharge. For and other factors (dilution, thickness of the unsaturated
example, adsorption properties may be unimportant if zone, etc.), additional treatment may be required. Nitro
recharge is primarily for storage. gen is often removed prior to surface spreading to elimi
nate concerns over nitrate contamination of groundwater
After the applied recharge water has passed through the and to simplify the permitting of storage systems as part
soil zone, the geologic and subsurface hydrologic condi of an overall reuse scheme. When extract water is used
tions control the sustained infiltration rates. The follow for potable purposes, post-treatment by disinfection is
ing geologic and hydrologic characteristics should be in commonly practiced. In soil-aquifer treatment systems
vestigated to determine the total usable storage capac where the extracted water is to be used for nonpotable
ity and the rate of movement of water from the spreading purposes, satisfactory water quality has been obtained
grounds to the area of groundwater withdrawal: at some sites using primary effluent for spreading pro
viding that the hydraulic loading rates are low to prevent
33
the development of anaerobic conditions (Carlson et al., placement due to wash outs and possible legal
1982 and Lance et al., 1980). restrictions related to such construction prac
tices.
For surface spreading of reclaimed water to be effective,
the wetted surfaces of the soil must remain unclogged, d. Riverbank or Dune Filtration
the surface area should maximize infiltration, and the
quality of the reclaimed water should not inhibit infiltra Riverbank and dune filtration generally rely on
tion. the use of existing waterways that have natural
connections to groundwater systems. Recharge
Operational procedures should maximize the amount of via riverbank or sand dune filtration is practiced
water being recharged while optimizing reclaimed water in Europe as a means of indirect potable reuse.
quality by maintaining long contact times with the soil It is incorporated as an element in water supply
matrix. If nitrogen removal is desired and the major form systems where the source is untreated surface
of applied nitrogen is total kjehldal nitrogen, then mainte water, usually a river. The surface water is infil
nance of the vadose zone is necessary to allow for par trated into the groundwater zone through the
tial nitrification of ammonium ions adsorbed in the va riverbank, percolation from spreading basins,
dose zone. The depth to the groundwater table should be canals, lakes, or percolation from drain fields of
deep enough to prevent breakthrough of adsorbed am porous pipe. In the latter 2 cases, the river water
monium to the saturated zone to ensure continuous is diverted by gravity or pumped to the recharge
and effective removal of nitrogen (Fox, 2002). site. The water then travels through an aquifer to
extraction wells at some distance from the
Techniques for surface spreading include surface flood riverbank. In some cases, the residence time
ing, ridge and furrow systems, stream channel modifi underground is only 20 to 30 days, and there is
cations, and infiltration basins. The system used is de almost no dilution by natural groundwater
pendent on many factors such as soil type and porosity, (Sontheimer, 1980). In Germany, systems that
depth to groundwater, topography, and the quality and do not meet a minimum residence time of 50
quantity of the reclaimed water (Kopehynski et al., 1996). days are required to have post-treatment of the
recovered water and similar guidelines are ap
a. Surface Flooding plied in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, dune
infiltration of treated Rhine River water has been
Reclaimed water is spread over a large, gently used to restore the equilibrium between fresh and
sloped area (1 to 3 percent grade). Ditches and saltwater in the dunes (Piet and Zoeteman, 1980;
berms may enclose the flooding area. Advantages Olsthoorn and Mosch, 2002), while serving to
are low capital and operations and maintenance improve water quality and provide storage for
(O&M) costs. Disadvantages are large area re potable water systems. Dune infiltration also pro
quirements, evaporation losses, and clogging. vides protection from accidental spills of toxic
contaminants into the Rhine River. Some sys
b. Ridge and Furrow tems have been in place for over 100 years, and
there is no evidence that the performance of the
Water is placed in narrow, flat-bottomed ditches. system has deteriorated or that contaminants
Ridge and furrow is especially adaptable to slop have accumulated. The City of Berlin has
ing land, but only a small percentage of the land greater than 25 percent reclaimed water in its
surface is available for infiltration. drinking water supply, and no disinfection is prac
ticed after bank filtration.
c. Stream Channel Modifications
e. Infiltration Basins
Berms are constructed in stream channels to
retard the downstream movement of the sur Infiltration basins are the most widely used
face water and, thus, increase infiltration into the method of groundwater recharge. Basins afford
underground. This method is used mainly in high loading rates with relatively low maintenance
ephemeral or shallow rivers and streams where and land requirements. Basins consist of bermed,
machinery can enter the streambeds when there flat-bottomed areas of varying sizes. Long, nar
is little or no flow to construct the berms and row basins built on land contours have been ef
prepare the ground surface for recharge. Disad fectively used. Basins constructed on highly
vantages may include a frequent need for re permeable soils to achieve high hydraulic rates
34
are called rapid infiltration basins. Basin infiltra ing, draining, and drying cycles. Cycle length is
tion rates may sometimes be enhanced or main dependent on both soil conditions and the dis
tained by creation of ridges within the basin tance to the groundwater table. This is determined
(Peyton, 2002). The advantage of ridges within through field-testing on a case-by-case basis.
the basin is that materials that cause basin clog Algae can clog the bottom of basins and reduce
ging accumulate in the bottom of the ridges while infiltration rates. Algae further aggravate soil clog
the remainder of the ridge maintains high infiltra ging by removing carbon dioxide, which raises
tion rates. the pH, causing precipitation of calcium carbon
ate. Reducing the detention time of the reclaimed
Rapid infiltration basins require permeable soil water within the basins minimizes algal growth,
for high hydraulic loading rates, yet the soil must particularly during summer periods where solar
be fine enough to provide sufficient soil surfaces intensity and temperature increase algal growth
for biochemical and microbiological reactions, rates. The levels of nutrients necessary to stimu
which provide additional treatment to the re late algal growth are too low for practical consid
claimed water. Some of the best soils are in the eration of nutrient removal as a method to con
sandy loam, loamy sand, and fine sand range. trol algae. Also, scarifying, rototilling, or discing
the soil following the drying cycle can help allevi
When the reclaimed water is applied to the ate clogging potential, although scraping or “shav
spreading basin, the water percolates through ing” the bottom to remove the clogging layer is
the unsaturated zone to the saturated zone of more effective than discing it. Removing the hard
the groundwater table. The hydraulic loading precipitant using an underwater machine has also
rate is preliminarily estimated by soil studies, been accomplished (Mills, 2002).
but final evaluation is completed through oper
ating in situ test pits or ponds. Hydraulic load 2.5.1.2 Soil-Aquifer Treatment Systems
ing rates for rapid infiltration basins vary from
65 to 500 feet per year (20 to 150 meters per Soil-Aquifer Treatment (SAT) systems usually are de
year), but are usually less than 300 feet per year signed and operated such that all of the infiltrated water
(90 meters per year) (Bouwer, 1988). is recovered via wells, drains, or seepage into surface
water. Typical SAT recharge and recovery systems are
Though management techniques are site-spe- shown in Figure 2-7. SAT systems with infiltration ba
cific and vary accordingly, some common prin sins require unconfined aquifers, vadose zones free of
ciples are practiced in most infiltration basins. A restricting layers, and soils that are coarse enough to
wetting and drying cycle with periodic cleaning allow high infiltration rates, but fine enough to provide
of the bottom is used to prevent clogging. Dry adequate filtration. Sandy loams and loamy or fine sands
ing cycles allow for desiccation of clogging lay are the preferred surface soils in SAT systems. Recent
ers and re-aeration of the soil. This practice helps work on SAT removal of dissolved organic carbon (DOC),
to maintain high infiltration rates, and microbial trace organics, and organic halides has shown positive
populations to consume organic matter, and results (Fox et al., 2001; Drewes et al., 2001). The ma
helps reduce levels of microbiological constitu jority of trace organic compounds are removed by bio
ents. Re-aeration of the soil also promotes nitri degradation and organic chlorine and organic bromine are
fication, which is a prerequisite for nitrogen re removed to ambient levels. Short-term DOC removal is
moval by denitrification. Periodic maintenance enhanced by maintaining aerobic conditions in the un
by cleaning of the bottom may be done by deep saturated zone (Fox, 2002).
ripping of the soils or by scraping the top layer of
soil. Deep ripping sometimes causes fines to In the U.S., municipal wastewater usually receives con
migrate to deeper levels where a deep clogging ventional primary and secondary treatment prior to SAT.
layer may develop. The Orange County Water However, since SAT systems are capable of removing
District (California) has developed a device to more BOD than is in secondary effluent, efficient sec
continuously remove clogging materials during ondary treatment may not be necessary in cases where
a flooding cycle. the wastewater is subjected to SAT and subsequently
reused for nonpotable purposes. Higher organic con
Spreading grounds can be managed to avoid nui tent may enhance nitrogen removal by denitrification in
sance conditions such as algae growth and in the SAT system and may enhance removal of synthetic
sect breeding in the percolation ponds. Gener organic compounds by stimulating greater microbiologi
ally, a number of basins are rotated through fill cal activity in the soil. However low hydraulic loading
35
Figure 2-7. Schematic of Soil-Aquifer Treatment Systems
rates must be used to prevent anaerobic conditions from conducted to assess the sustainability of several differ
developing which can prevent complete biodegradation ent SAT systems with different site characteristics and
in the sub-surface. More frequent cleaning of the basins effluent pretreatments (AWWARF, 2001). (See case study
would increase the cost of the SAT, but would not nec 2.7.16). In all of the systems studied, water quality im
essarily increase the total system cost. provements were similar to the results presented by
Bouwer (1984). When significant travel times in the
Where hydrogeologic conditions permit groundwater re vadose or saturated zone existed, water quality improve
charge with surface infiltration facilities, considerable ments exceeded the improvements actually observed
improvement in water quality may be achieved through by Bouwer (1984).
the movement of wastewater through the soil, unsatur
ated zone, and saturated zone. Table 2-9 provides an The 3 main engineering factors that can affect the perfor
example of overall improvement in the quality of second mance of soil aquifer treatment systems are: effluent
ary effluent in a groundwater recharge SAT system. These pretreatment, site characteristics, and operating condi
water quality improvements are not limited to soil aquifer tions (Fox, 2002).
treatment systems and are applicable to most ground
water recharge systems where aerobic and/or anoxic Effluent Pretreatment – Effluent pretreatment directly
conditions exist and there is sufficient storage time. impacts the concentrations of biodegradable matter that
are applied to a percolation basin. Therefore, it is a key
These data are the result of a demonstration project in factor that can be controlled as part of a SAT system.
the Salt River bed, west of Phoenix, Arizona (Bouwer One of the greatest impacts of effluent pretreatment dur
and Rice, 1989). The cost of SAT has been shown to be ing SAT is near the soil/water interface where high bio
less than 40 percent of the cost of equivalent above- logical activity is observed. This condition occurs be
ground treatment (Bouwer, 1991). It should also be noted cause both the highest concentrations of biodegradable
that the SAT product water was recovered from a moni matter and oxygen are present. Both organic carbon and
toring well located adjacent to the recharge basin. Most ammonia may be biologically oxidized. They are the wa
SAT systems allow for considerable travel time in the ter quality parameters that control the amount of oxygen
aquifer and provide the opportunity for improvement in demand in applied effluents. One of the greatest impacts
water quality. of effluent pretreatment is to the total oxygen demand of
applied water. Near the soil/water surface, biological ac
An intensive study, entitled, “An Investigation of Soil tivity with an effluent that has high total oxygen demand
Aquifer Treatment for Sustainable Water Reuse,” was will result in the use of all the dissolved oxygen. Aerobic
36
Table 2-9. Water Quality at Phoenix, Arizona, SAT System
Secondary Effluent Recovery W ell Samples

(mg/l) (mg/l)
Total dissolved solids 750 790
Suspended solids 11 1
Ammonium nitrogen 16 0.1
Nitrate nitrogen 0.5 5.3
Organic nitrogen 1.5 0.1
Phosphate phosphorus 5.5 0.4
Fluoride 1.2 0.7
Boron 0.6 0.6
Biochemical oxygen demand 12 <1
Total organic carbon 12 1.9
Zinc 0.19 0.03
Copper 0.12 0.016
Cadmium 0.008 0.007
Lead 0.082 0.066
Fecal coliforms/100 mL a 3500 0.3
b
Viruses, pfu/100 mL 2118 <1
a Chlorinated effluent
b Undisinfected effluent
Source: Adapted from Bouwer and Rice, 1989.
conditions can be maintained with effluents that have rates. The drying cycle allows for the desiccation of the
low total oxygen demand. It should also be noted that clogging layer and the recovery of infiltration rates during
the majority of oxygen demand exerted during wetting is the next wetting cycle. Operating conditions are depen
from the oxidation of organic carbon while ammonia is dent on a number of environmental factors including tem
removed by adsorption (Kopchynski et al., 1996). perature, precipitation and solar incidence. Therefore,
operating conditions must be adjusted to both local site
Site Characteristics – Site characteristics are a function characteristics and weather patterns.
of local geology and hydrogeology. Site selection is of
ten dependent on a number of practical factors including 2.5.1.3 Vadose Zone Injection
suitability for percolation, proximity to conveyance chan
nels and/or water reclamation facilities, and the avail Vadose zone injection wells for groundwater recharge with
ability of land. The design of SAT systems must accom reclaimed water were developed in the 1990s and have
modate the site characteristics. The design options are been used in several different cities in the Phoenix, Ari
primarily limited to the size and depth of percolation ba zona, metropolitan area. Typical vadose zone injection
sins and the location of recovery wells. Increasing the wells are 6 feet (2 meters) in diameter and 100 to 150
depth of percolation basins can be done to access high feet (30 to 46 meters) deep. They are backfilled with po
permeability soils. The location of recovery wells affects rous media and a riser pipe is used to allow for water to
the travel time for subsurface flow and mounding below enter at the bottom of the injection well to prevent air
the percolation basins. entrainment. An advantage of vadose zone injection wells
is the significant cost savings as compared to direct in
Operating Conditions – The operation of SAT systems jection wells. The infiltration rates per well are often simi
with wet/dry cycles is a common operating strategy. The lar to direct injection wells. A significant disadvantage is
primary purpose of wet/dry cycle operation is to control that they cannot be backwashed and a severely clogged
the development of clogging layers and maintain high well can be permanently destroyed. Therefore, reliable
infiltration rates, and in some cases, to disrupt insect life pretreatment is considered essential to maintaining the
cycles. As a clogging layer develops during a wetting performance of a vadose zone injection well. Because of
cycle, infiltration rates can decrease to unacceptable the considerable cost savings associated with vadose
37
zone injection wells as compared to direct injection wells, cern, such as NDMA and 1,4-dioxane into recovery
a life cycle of 5 years for a vadose injection well can still wells. In these cases, the final pretreatment step was
make the vadose zone injection well the economical reverse osmosis. Since reverse osmosis effectively re
choice. Since vadose zone injection wells allow for per moves almost all nutrients, improvements in water qual
colation of water through the vadose zone and flow in the ity by microbial activity might be limited in aquifers that
saturated zone, one would expect water quality improve receive reverse osmosis treated water. These emerg
ments commonly associated with soil aquifer treatment ing pollutants of concern have not been observed in soil
to be possible. aquifer treatment systems using spreading basins where
microbial activity in the subsurface is stimulated.
2.5.1.4 Direct Injection
Ideally, an injection well will recharge water at the same
Direct injection involves pumping reclaimed water directly rate as it can yield water by pumping. However, condi
into the groundwater zone, which is usually a well-con- tions are rarely ideal. Injection/withdrawal rates tend to
fined aquifer. Direct injection is used where groundwater decrease over time. Although clogging can easily be rem
is deep or where hydrogeological conditions are not con edied in a surface spreading system by scraping, discing,
ducive to surface spreading. Such conditions might in drying and other methods, remediation in a direct injec
clude unsuitable soils of low permeability, unfavorable tion system can be costly and time consuming. The most
topography for construction of basins, the desire to re frequent causes of clogging are accumulation of organic
charge confined aquifers, or scarcity of land. Direct injec and inorganic solids, biological and chemical contami
tion into a saline aquifer can create a freshwater “plume” nants, and dissolved air and gases from turbulence. Very
from which water can be extracted for reuse, particularly low concentrations of suspended solids, on the order of 1
in ASR systems (Pyne, 1995). Direct injection is also an mg/l, can clog an injection well. Even low concentrations
effective method for creating barriers against saltwater of organic contaminants can cause clogging due to bac
intrusion in coastal areas. teriological growth near the point of injection.
Direct injection requires water of higher quality than for Many criteria specific to the quality of the reclaimed wa
surface spreading because of the absence of vadose ter, groundwater, and aquifer material have to be taken
zone and/or shallow soil matrix treatment afforded by into consideration prior to construction and operation.
surface spreading and the need to maintain the hydrau These include possible chemical reactions between the
lic capacity of the injection wells, which are prone to physi reclaimed water and groundwater, iron precipitation, ionic
cal, biological, and chemical clogging. Treatment pro reactions, biochemical changes, temperature differences,
cesses beyond secondary treatment that are used prior and viscosity changes. Most clogging problems are
to injection include disinfection, filtration, air stripping, avoided by proper pretreatment, well construction, and
ion exchange, granular activated carbon, and reverse proper operation (Stuyzand, 2002). Injection well design
osmosis or other membrane separation processes. By and operations should consider the need to occasionally
using these processes or various subsets in appropriate reverse the flow or backflush the well much like a conven
combinations, it is possible to satisfy present water quality tional filter or membrane. In California and Arizona, injec
requirements for reuse. In many cases, the wells used tion wells are being constructed or retrofitted with dedi
for injection and recovery are classified by the EPA as cated pumping or backflushing equipment to maintain
Class V injection wells. Some states require that the in injection capacity and reduce the frequency of major well
jected water must meet drinking water standards prior to redevelopment events.
injection into a Class V well.
2.5.2 Fate of Contaminants in Recharge
For both surface spreading and direct injection, locating Systems
the extraction wells as great a distance as possible from
the recharge site increases the flow path length and resi The fate of contaminants is an important consideration
dence time in the underground, as well as the mixing of for groundwater recharge systems using reclaimed wa
the recharged water with the natural groundwater. Treat ter. Contaminants in the subsurface environment are
ment of organic parameters does occur in the groundwa subject to processes such as biodegradation by micro
ter system with time, especially in aerobic or anoxic con organisms, adsorption and subsequent biodegradation,
ditions (Gordon et al., 2002; Toze and Hanna, 2002). filtration, ion exchange, volatilization, dilution, chemical
oxidation and reduction, chemical precipitation and com
There have been several cases where direct injection plex formation, and photochemical reactions (in spread
systems with wells providing significant travel time have ing basins) (Fox, 2002; Medema and Stuyzand, 2002).
allowed for the passage of emerging pollutants of con For surface spreading operations, chemical and micro
38
biological constituents are removed in the top 6 feet (2 are indications that biodegradation is enhanced if the
meters) of the vadose zone at the spreading site. aquifer material is finely divided and has a high specific
surface area, such as fine sand or silt. However, such
2.5.2.1 Particulate Matter conditions can lead to clogging by bacterial growths.
Coarser aquifer materials such as gravel and some sands
Particles larger than the soil pores are strained off at the have greater permeability and, thus, less clogging. How
soil-water interface. Particulate matter, including some ever, biodegradation may be less rapid and perhaps less
bacteria, is removed by sedimentation in the pore spaces extensive. The biodegradation of easily degradable or
of the media during filtration. Viruses are mainly removed ganics occurs a short distance (few meters) from the
by adsorption and interaction with anaerobic bacteria point of recharge. A large body of literature shows that
(Gordon et al., 2002). The accumulated particles gradu biodegradable compounds do not survive long in anoxic
ally form a layer restricting further infiltration. Suspended or aerobic groundwater and only chemical compounds
solids that are not retained at the soil/water interface that have high solubility and extensive half-lives are of
may be effectively removed by infiltration and adsorp great concern (i.e. chlorinated solvents). Specific groups
tion in the soil profile. As water flows through passages of compounds also require longer times due to their com
formed by the soil particles, suspended and colloidal solids plex biodegradation pathways; however, the product wa
far too small to be retained by straining are thrown off the ter from SAT may be compared to membrane processed
streamline through hydrodynamic actions, diffusion, im water since select groups of compounds may persist in
pingement, and sedimentation. The particles are then both cases (Drewes et al., 2003).
intercepted and adsorbed onto the surface of the station
ary soil matrix. The degree of trapping and adsorption of The end products of complete degradation under aerobic
suspended particles by soils is a function of the sus conditions include carbon dioxide, sulfate, nitrate, phos
pended solids concentration, soil characteristics, and phate, and water. The end products under anaerobic con
hydraulic loading. Suspended solids removal is enhanced ditions include carbon dioxide, nitrogen, sulfide, and
by longer travel distances underground. methane. The mechanisms operating on refractory or
ganic constituents over long time periods typical of ground
For dissolved inorganic constituents to be removed or water environments are not well understood. However,
retained in the soil, physical, chemical, or microbiologi sustainable removal has been observed over significant
cal reactions are required to precipitate and/or immobi time periods demonstrating that biodegradation is the
lize the dissolved constituents. Chemical reactions that major removal mechanism since accumulation of organic
are important to a soil’s capability to react with dissolved carbon in the sub-surface is not observed (AWWARF,
inorganics include cation exchange reactions, precipi 2001). The degradation of organic contaminants may be
tation, surface adsorption, chelation, complexation, and partial and result in a residual organic product that can
weathering (dissolution) of clay minerals. not be further degraded at an appreciable rate (Khan and
Rorije, 2002), and such metabolites are often difficult to
While inorganic constituents such as chloride, sodium, identify and detect (Drewes et al., 2001).
and sulfate are unaffected by ground passage, many
other inorganic constituents exhibit substantial removal. Results were presented in a 2001 AWWARF study en
For example, iron and phosphorus removal in excess of titled, “An Investigation of Soil Aquifer Treatment for
90 percent has been achieved by precipitation and ad Sustainable Water Reuse.” This investigation demon
sorption in the underground, although the ability of the strated the potential removal ability of an entire SAT
soil to remove these and other constituents may decrease system where travel times are expected to be on the
over time. Heavy metal removal varies widely for differ order of 6 months or greater before water is recovered.
ent elements, ranging from 0 to more than 90 percent, Since most trace organic compounds are present at con
depending on the speciation of the influent metals. centrations that cannot directly support microbial growth,
the sustainable removal mechanism for these compounds
2.5.2.2 Dissolved Organic Constituents is co-metabolic. The microbes catalyze the mineraliza
tion of the organic compounds, but the microorganisms
Dissolved organic constituents are subject to biodegra do not get enough energy from the trace organic com
dation and adsorption during recharge. Biodegradation pounds to support growth. In the study, the majority of
mainly occurs by microorganisms attached to the me compounds analyzed were below detection limits after 6
dia surface (Skjemstad et al., 2002). The rate and extent months of travel time in the sub-surface. Therefore, it
of biodegradation is strongly influenced by the nature of appears that significant time in the sub-surface is re
the organic substances and by the presence of electron quired in a microbially active aquifer to efficiently remove
acceptors such as dissolved oxygen and nitrate. There trace organics that are potentially biodegradable by co
39
metabolism. One would expect similar results for aero trogen removal. During SAT, it is possible for adsorbed
bic or anoxic (nitrate-reducing) aquifers. But results are ammonia to serve as an electron donor to convert ni
not conclusive for anaerobic aquifers. Several pharma trate to nitrogen gas by ANAMMOX. Evidence for
ceutical compounds do appear to be recalcitrant in a ANAMMOX activity was obtained in soils obtained from
microbially active aquifer at concentrations in the part the Tucson site. Since adsorbed ammonia is available
per trillion range. A bench scale study of an unconfined for nitrification when oxygen reaches soils containing
aquifer irrigated with reclaimed water found antipyrine adsorbed ammonia, ANAMMOX activity could occur as
moved rapidly through the soil, while caffeine was sub nitrate percolates through soils containing adsorbed am
ject to adsorption and microbial degradation (Babcock et monia under anoxic conditions. This implies that there is
al., 2002). a sustainable mechanism for nitrogen removal during SAT
when effluent pretreatment does not include nitrogen re
Endocrine-disrupting activity has also been evaluated moval and the majority of applied nitrogen is ammonia.
during soil aquifer treatment and results consistently Appropriate wetting/drying cycles are necessary to pro
suggest that soil aquifer treatment rapidly reduces endo- mote nitrification in the upper vadose zone during drying
crine-disrupting activity to ambient levels (Turney et al., cycles. The more mobile nitrate passes over soils with
In Press). Since the majority of compounds that are sus adsorbed ammonia under anoxic conditions deeper in the
pected to cause endocrine disruption are either strongly vadose zone. Extended wetting cycles with short dry
adsorbed or biodegradable, the results are consistent with cycles will result in ammonia adsorbed at increasing
microbial activity providing sustainable removal of organ depths as adsorption sites become exhausted. Extended
ics during soil aquifer treatment. drying cycles will result in reaeration of soils at greater
depths resulting in nitrification of adsorbed ammonia at
2.5.2.3 Nitrogen greater depths. A mechanistic model was developed to
provide guidelines for the operation of soil aquifer treat
The 2 major forms of nitrogen in reclaimed water are typi ment systems to sustain nitrogen removal (Fox, 2003).
cally ammonia and nitrate. As reported by AWWARF
(2001), the concentrations and forms of nitrogen in ap 2.5.2.4 Microorganisms
plied effluents are a strong function of effluent pretreat
ment. Secondary effluents contained ammonia nitrogen The survival or retention of pathogenic microorganisms
at concentrations up to 20 mg-N/l while denitrified efflu in the subsurface depends on several factors including
ents contained primarily nitrate nitrogen at concentra climate, soil composition, antagonism by soil microflora,
tions less than 10 mg-N/l. Ammonia nitrogen is the ma flow rate, and type of microorganism. At low tempera
jor form of oxygen demand in secondary effluents that tures (below 4 °C or 39 °F) some microorganisms can
are not nitrified. survive for months or years. The die-off rate is approxi
mately doubled with each 10 °C (18 oF) rise in tempera
Nitrogen can be efficiently removed during effluent pre ture between 5 and 30 °C (41 and 86 °F) (Gerba and
treatment; however, appropriately operated SAT sys Goyal, 1985). Rainfall may mobilize bacteria and viruses
tems have the capacity to remove nitrogen in second that had been filtered or adsorbed, and thus, enhance
ary effluents. The removal of nitrogen appears to be a their transport.
sustainable, biologically mediated process. When am
monia is present in reclaimed water, the ammonia is The nature of the soil affects survival and retention. For
removed by adsorption during wetting when insufficient example, rapid infiltration sites where viruses have been
oxygen is available to support nitrification. Nitrification detected in groundwater were located on coarse sand
of adsorbed ammonia occurs during subsequent drying and gravel types. Infiltration rates at these sites were
cycles as re-aeration of vadose zone soils occurs. Ni high and the ability of the soil to adsorb the viruses was
trate is weakly adsorbed and is transported with bulk water low. Generally, coarse soil does not inhibit virus migra
flow during SAT. Removal of nitrate was consistently tion. Other soil properties, such as pH, cation concentra
observed at all sites where anoxic or anaerobic condi tion, moisture holding capacity, and organic matter do
tions were present (AWWARF, 2001). The biological re have an affect on the survival of bacteria and viruses in
moval mechanism for denitrification was found to be site the soil. Resistance of microorganisms to environmental
specific. factors depends on the species and strains present.
The 2001 AWWARF study entitled, “An Investigation of Drying the soil will kill both bacteria and viruses. Bacte
Soil Aquifer Treatment for Sustainable Water Reuse.” ria survive longer in alkaline soils than in acid soils (pH 3
investigated the mechanism of anaerobic ammonia oxi to 5) and when large amounts of organic matter are
dation (ANAMMOX) as a sustainable mechanism for ni present. In general, increasing cation concentration and
40
decreasing pH and soluble organics tend to promote vi One problem with recharge is that boundaries between
rus adsorption. Bacteria and larger organisms associ potable and nonpotable aquifers are rarely well defined.
ated with wastewater are effectively removed after per Some risk of contaminating high quality potable ground
colation through a short distance of the soil mantle. Lysim water supplies is often incurred by recharging “nonpotable”
eter studies showed a greater than 99 percent removal aquifers. The recognized lack of knowledge about the
of bacteria and 95 to 99 percent removal of viruses (Cuyk fate and long-term health effects of contaminants found
et al., 1999). Factors that may influence virus movement in reclaimed water obliges a conservative approach in
in groundwater are given in Table 2-10. Proper treatment setting water quality standards and monitoring require
(including disinfection) prior to recharge, site selection, ments for groundwater recharge. Because of these un
and management of the surface spreading recharge sys certainties, some states have set stringent water quality
tem can minimize or eliminate the presence of microor requirements and require high levels of treatment – in
ganisms in the groundwater. Once the microorganisms some cases, organic removal processes – where ground
reach the groundwater system, the oxidation state of the water recharge impacts potable aquifers.
water significantly affects the rate of removal (Medema
and Stuyfzand, 2002; Gordon et al., 2002). 2.6 Augmentation of Potable Supplies
2.5.3 Health and Regulatory This section discusses indirect potable reuse via sur
Considerations face water augmentation, groundwater recharge, and di
rect potable reuse. For the purpose of this document,
Constraints on groundwater recharge are conditioned by indirect potable reuse is defined as the augmentation of
the use of the extracted water and include health con a community’s raw water supply with treated wastewater
cerns, economic feasibility, physical limitations, legal followed by an environmental buffer (Crook, 2001). The
restrictions, water quality constraints, and reclaimed water treated wastewater is mixed with surface and/or ground
availability. Of these constraints, health concerns are water, and the mix typically receives additional treatment
the most important as they pervade almost all recharge before entering the water distribution system. Direct po
projects (Tsuchihashi et al., 2002). Where reclaimed wa table reuse is defined as the introduction of treated waste
ter will be ingested, health effects due to prolonged ex water directly into a water distribution system without
posure to low levels of contaminants must be consid intervening storage (pipe-to-pipe) (Crook, 2001). Both such
ered as well as the acute health effects from pathogens sources of potable water are, at face value, less desir
or toxic substances. [See Section 3.4.1 Health Assess able than using a higher quality source for drinking.
ment of Water Reuse and Section 2.6 Augmentation of
Potable Supplies.]
Table 2-10. Factors that May Influence Virus Movement to Groundwater
Factor Comments
Fine-textured soils retain viruses more effectively than light-textured soils. Iron oxides increase the
Soil Type
adsorptive capacity of soils. Muck soils are generally poor adsorbents.
Generally, adsorption increases when pH decreases. However, the reported trends are not clear-
pH
cut due to complicating factors.
Adsorption increases in the presence of cations. Cations help reduce repulsive forces on both virus
Cations
and soil particles. Rainwater may desorb viruses from soil due to its low conductivity.
Generally compete with viruses for adsorption sites. No significant competition at concentrations
Soluble Organics found in wastewater effluents. Humic and fulvic acids reduce virus
adsorption to soils.
Virus Type Adsorption to soils varies with virus type and strain. Viruses may have different isoelectric points.
Flow Rate The higher the flow rate, the lower virus adsorption to soils.
Saturated vs. Unsaturated Flow Virus movement is less under unsaturated flow conditions.
Source: Gerba and Goyal, 1985.
41
A guiding principle in the development of potable water compounds under the NPDWR as outlined by the 1986
supplies for almost 150 years was stated in the 1962 and 1996 SDWA amendments.
Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards:
“. . . water supply should be taken from the most desir MCLs are thought of as standards for individual chemi
able source which is feasible, and efforts should be made cals. However, contaminants can be regulated by speci
to prevent or control pollution of the source.” This was fying treatment processes and performance standards
affirmed by the EPA (1976) in its Primary Drinking Water without directly measuring the contaminant. Because of
Regulations: “ . . priority should be given to selection of the sheer numbers of potential chemicals, traditional
the purest source. Polluted sources should not be used wastewater treatment processes are not the panacea
unless other sources are economically unavailable. . . “ for all potable water quality concerns, particularly since
current analytical methods are insufficient to identify all
2.6.1 Water Quality Objectives for Potable potential contaminants at concentrations of health sig
Reuse nificance. If the analytical method does not have suffi
cient sensitivity, then the presence of contaminants may
Development of water quality requirements for either di go unobserved. Water reuse agencies in California ob
rect or indirect potable reuse is difficult. The task in served problems with specific chemicals and trace or
volves a risk management process that entails evaluat ganics being discharged to wastewater treatment plants.
ing, enumerating, and defining the risks and potential These elements were detected in the final effluents, only
adverse health impacts that are avoided by the practice after analytical detection limits were lowered.
of physically separating wastewater disposal and do
mestic water supply. By physically separating waste Additional concerns have been raised regarding the fate
water disposal and domestic water supply by environ and transport of trace organic compounds (Daughton and
mental storage, the life cycle of waterborne diseases Temes 1999 and Sedlak et al., 2000). These include en
can be broken, thereby preventing or reducing disease docrine disruptors, pharmaceuticals, hormones, antibi
in the human population. As the physical proximity and otics, anti-inflammatories, and personal care products
perceived distance between reclaimed water and do (antibacterial soaps, sunscreen, bath gels, etc.) that are
mestic water supply decreases, human contact with and present in municipal wastewaters. None of these indi
consumption of reclaimed water become more certain, vidual compounds are regulated or monitored by maxi
and the potential impacts to human health become mum contaminant levels (MCLs) in the SDWA.
harder to define.
Some indirect water reuse projects (San Diego and Den
From a regulatory standpoint, there is a tendency to use ver) have started using toxicological assays to compare
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) National Primary the drinking water source to the reclaimed water. While
Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) as a starting point these studies have generally shown that the assay re
for defining potable water quality objectives. For years, sults show no difference between the reclaimed water
water reuse advocates have argued that reclaimed water and the source water used for domestic supply, there are
from municipal wastewater meets the requirements of concerns that current toxicological methods are not sen
the NPDWR. However, the original purpose of the NPDWR sitive enough to characterize the impact of reclaimed water
was not intended to define potable water quality when on human health in the 10-4 and 10-6 risk range. As part of
the source is municipal wastewater. the 1996 SDWA amendments, EPA is charged with de
veloping an evaluation that considers the health impact
There has been a dramatic increase in the ability to de of an identified contaminant to sensitive subpopulations.
tect chemicals in recent years. Considering the hundreds
of thousands of chemicals manufactured or used in the In 1996 and 1999, the Rand Corporation conducted epi
manufacturing of products, the number of chemicals regu demiological studies to monitor the health of those con
lated by the SDWA represent a small fraction of these suming reclaimed water in Los Angeles County (Sloss et
compounds. The 1986 SDWA amendments required EPA al., 1996 and Sloss et al., 1999). The 1996 ecologic study
to promulgate 25 new maximum contaminant levels design looked at selected infectious disease occurrence
(MCLs), or drinking water treatment requirements, for as well as cancer incidence and mortality. Investigators
specific contaminants every 3 years (Calabrese et al. could find no link between the incidence of infectious
1989). However, the 1996 SDWA amendments reduced disease or cancer rates and exposure to reclaimed wa
that number by requiring the agency to “consider” regu ter. The 1999 study focused on adverse birth outcomes
lating up to 5 contaminants every 5 years. Figure 2-8 (prenatal development, infant mortality, and birth defects).
shows the potential impact to the number of regulated Similar results were reported for the 1999 study; there
was no association between reclaimed water and adverse
42
Figure 2-8. Contaminants Regulated by the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
birth outcomes. However, epidemiological studies are lim potable reuse, the NRC emphasized that there are far
ited, and these studies are no exception. Researchers more manageable, nonpotable reclaimed water applica
noted several weaknesses in their study design that con tions that do not involve human consumption. The focus
tribute to the overall uncertainty associated with the find of health impacts shifts from the acute microbiologically-
ings. They found that it was difficult to get an accurate induced diseases, for nonpotable reuse, to the diseases
assessment of reclaimed water exposure in the different resulting from long-term chronic exposure, e.g., cancer
areas. or reproductive effects, for potable reuse.
In addition to the uncertainties associated with toxico While direct potable reuse may not be considered a vi
logical and epidemiological studies, current analytical able option at this time, many states are moving for
systems are insensitive to the contaminants of concern. ward with indirect potable reuse projects. For many cit
Surrogates are often used as performance-based stan ies or regions, the growing demand for water, lack of new
dards. Microbiological water quality objectives are de water resources, and frequent calls for water conserva
fined by surrogates or treatment performance standards tion in low and consecutive low rainfall years have re
that do not measure the contaminant of concern, but sulted in the need to augment potable supplies with re
nevertheless, provide some indication the treatment train claimed water. Indeed, in some situations, indirect po
is operating properly, and the product is of adequate qual table reuse may be the next best alternative to make
ity. It is then assumed that under similar conditions of beneficial use of the resource. Further, the lack of infra
operation, the microbiological contaminant of concern is structure for direct nonpotable reuse may be too cum
being removed concurrently. For example, coliforms are bersome to implement in a timely manner.
an indicator of microbiological water quality. While there
are documents discussing the criteria for an ideal surro With a combination of treatment barriers and added pro
gate (AWWARF and KIWA, 1988), no surrogate meets tection provided by environmental storage, the problem
every criterion. Hence, the shortcomings of the surro of defining water quality objectives for indirect potable
gate should also be remembered. reuse is manageable. By employing treatment beyond
typical disinfected tertiary treatment, indirect potable
In 1998, the National Research Council (NRC) published, reuse projects will provide additional organics removal
“Issues in Potable Reuse,” an update of its 1980 report. and environmental storage (retention time) for the re
In this update, the NRC did not consider addressing di claimed water, thereby furnishing added protection
rect potable reuse for the reason that, without added pro against the unknowns and uncertainty associated with
tection (such as storage in the environment), the NRC trace organics. However, these processes will be oper
did not view direct potable reuse as a viable option. Rather ated using performance standards based on surrogates
than face the risks associated with direct, pipe-to-pipe that do not address specific contaminants. Until better
43
source control and protection programs are in place to More recent indirect potable reuse projects that involve
deal with the myriad of chemicals discharged into the surface water augmentation are exemplified by the Up
wastewater collection systems, or until analytical and per Occoquan Sewage Authority (UOSA) treatment fa
toxicological testing becomes more sensitive, the con cilities in northern Virginia, which discharge reclaimed
cern over low-level contaminant concentrations will re water into Bull Run, just above Occoquan Reservoir, a
main. If and when contaminants are found, treatment water supply source for Fairfax County, Virginia. The
technologies can be applied to reduce the problem. EPA UOSA plant, in operation since 1978, provides AWT that
(2001) has identified several drinking water treatment is more extensive than required treatment for nonpotable
processes capable of removing some endocrine reuse and accordingly provides water of much higher
disruptors. Examples are granular activated carbon and quality for indirect potable reuse than is required for
membrane treatment. nonpotable reuse (Joint Task Force, 1998). In Clayton
County, Georgia, wastewater receives secondary treat
Potable reuse, whether direct or indirect, is not a risk- ment, and then undergoes land treatment, with the re
free practice. No human engineered endeavor is risk-free, turn subsurface flow reaching a stream used as a source
but with appropriate treatment barriers (and process con of potable water. The Clayton County project, which has
trol) water quality objectives will be defined by an ac been in operation for 20 years, is being upgraded to
ceptable risk. Given the unknowns, limitations, and un include wetlands treatment and enhancements at the
certainty with the current state of science and tech water treatment plant (Thomas et al., 2002).
nology, it is not possible to establish the threshold at
which no observed effect would occur, just as it is not While UOSA now provides a significant portion of the
reasonable to expect current scientific techniques to water in the system, varying from an average of about 7
demonstrate the absence of an impact on human health. percent of the average annual flow to as much as 80-90
percent during drought periods, most surface water aug
2.6.2 Surface Water Augmentation for mentation indirect potable reuse projects have been driven
Indirect Potable Reuse by requirements for wastewater disposal and pollution
control. Their contributions to increased public water sup
For many years, a number of cities have elected to take ply were incidental. In a comprehensive, comparative
water from large rivers that receive substantial waste study of the Occoquan and Clayton County projects, the
water discharges. These cities based their decisions, in water quality parameters assessed were primarily those
part, on the assurance that conventional filtration and germane to wastewater disposal and not to drinking wa
disinfection eliminates the pathogens responsible for ter (Reed and Bastian, 1991). Most discharges that con
waterborne infectious disease. These water sources were tribute to indirect potable water reuse, especially via riv
generally less costly and more easily developed than ers, are managed as wastewater disposal functions and
upland supplies or underground sources. Such large cit are handled in conformity with practices common to all
ies as Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and New Orleans, draw water pollution control efforts. The abstraction and use
ing water from the Delaware, Ohio and Mississippi Riv of reclaimed water is almost always the responsibility of
ers, respectively, are thus practicing indirect potable water a water supply agency that is not related politically, ad
reuse. The many cities upstream of their intakes can be ministratively, or even geographically to the wastewater
characterized as providing water reclamation in their disposal agency (except for being downstream). Increas
wastewater treatment facilities, although they were not ing populations and a growing scarcity of new water
designed, nor are they operated, as potable water sources. sources have spurred a small but growing number of com
NPDES permits for these discharges are intended to make munities to consider the use of highly-treated municipal
the rivers “fishable and swimmable,” and generally do wastewater to augment raw water supplies. This trend
not reflect potable water requirements downstream. These toward planned, indirect potable reuse is motivated by
indirect potable reuse systems originated at a time when need, but made possible through advances in treatment
the principal concern for drinking water quality was the technology. These advances enable production of re
prevention of enteric infectious diseases and issues re claimed water to almost any desired quality. Planned,
lating to chemical contaminants received lesser atten indirect potable reuse via surface water augmentation
tion. Nevertheless, most cities do provide water of ac and groundwater recharge is being practiced in the U.S.
ceptable quality that meets current drinking water regula and elsewhere. Notwithstanding the fact that some pro
tions. Unplanned or incidental indirect potable reuse via posed, high profile, indirect potable reuse projects have
surface water augmentation has been, and will continue been defeated in recent years due to public or political
to be, practiced widely. opposition to perceived health concerns, indirect potable
reuse will likely increase in the future.
44
2.6.3 Groundwater Recharge for Indirect The primary goal of the Health Effects Study was to pro
Potable Reuse vide information for use by health and regulatory au
thorities to determine if the use of reclaimed water for
As mentioned in Section 2.5.1, Methods of Groundwater the Montebello Forebay Project should be maintained
Recharge, groundwater recharge via surface spreading at the present level, cut back, or expanded. Specific
or injection has long been used to augment potable aqui objectives were to determine if the historical level of
fers. Although both planned and unplanned recharge into reuse had adversely affected groundwater quality or
potable aquifers has occurred for many years, few health- human health, and to estimate the relative impact of the
related studies have been undertaken. The most compre different replenishment sources on groundwater qual
hensive health effects study of an existing groundwater ity. Specific research tasks included:
recharge project was carried out in Los Angeles County,
California, in response to uncertainties about the health Water quality characterizations of the replenishment
consequences of recharge for potable use raised by a sources and groundwater in terms of their microbio
California Consulting Panel in 1975-76. logical and chemical content.
In November 1978, the County Sanitation Districts of Los Toxicological and chemical studies of the reple
Angeles County (Districts) initiated the “Health Effects nishment sources and groundwater to isolate and
Study,” a $1.4-million-project designed to evaluate the identify organic constituents of possible health sig
health effects of using treated wastewater for groundwa nificance
ter recharge based on the recommendations of the 1976
Consulting Panel. The focus of the study was the Field studies to evaluate the efficacy of soil for at
Montebello Forebay Groundwater Replenishment Project, tenuating chemicals in reclaimed water
located within the Central Groundwater Basin in Los An
geles County, California. Since 1962, the Districts’ re Hydrogeologic studies to determine the movement
claimed water has been blended with imported river wa of reclaimed water through groundwater and the rela
ter (Colorado River and State Project water) and local tive contribution of reclaimed water to municipal wa
stormwater runoff, and used for replenishment purposes. ter supplies
The project is managed by the Water Replenishment Dis
trict of Southern California (WRD) and is operated by the Epidemiologic studies of populations ingesting re
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. The claimed water to determine whether their health char
Central Groundwater Basin is adjudicated; 85 groundwa acteristics differed significantly from a demographi
ter agencies operate over 400 active wells. Water is per cally similar control population
colated into the groundwater using 2 sets of spreading
grounds: (1) the Rio Hondo Spreading Grounds consist During the course of the study, a technical advisory com
of 570 acres (200 hectares) with 20 individual basins and mittee and a peer review committee reviewed findings
(2) the San Gabriel River Spreading Grounds consist of and interpretations. The final project report was com
128 acres (52 hectares) with 3 individual basins and por pleted in March, 1984 as summarized by Nellor et al. in
tions of the river. The spreading basins are operated un 1985. The results of the study did not demonstrate any
der a wetting/drying cycle designed to optimize inflow measurable adverse effects on either the area ground
and discourage the development of vectors. water or health of the people ingesting the water. Al
though the study was not designed to provide data for
From 1962 to 1977, the water used for replenishment evaluating the impact of an increase in the proportion of
was disinfected secondary effluent. Filtration (dual-me- reclaimed water used for replenishment, the results did
dia or mono-media) was added later to enhance virus suggest that a closely monitored expansion could be
inactivation during final disinfection. By 1978, the amount implemented.
of reclaimed water spread averaged about 8.6 billion gal
lons per year (33 x 103 m3 per year) or 16 percent of the In 1986, the State Water Resources Control Board, De
total inflow to the groundwater basin with no more than partment of Water Resources and Department of Health
about 10.7 billion gallons (40 million m3) of reclaimed Services established a Scientific Advisory Panel on
water spread in any year. The percentage of reclaimed Groundwater Recharge to review the report and other
water contained in the extracted potable water supply pertinent information. The Panel concluded that it was
ranged from 0 to 11 percent on a long-term (1962-1977) comfortable with the safety of the product water and the
basis (Crook et al., 1990). continuation of the Montebello Forebay Project. The
Panel felt that the risks, if any, were small and probably
45
not dissimilar from those that could be hypothesized for (GWR) System is an innovative approach to keeping the
commonly used surface waters. Orange County, California, groundwater basin a reliable
source for meeting the region’s future potable water needs
Based on the results of the Health Effects Study and (Chalmers et al., 2003). A joint program of the Orange
recommendations of the Scientific Advisory Panel, the County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange County
Regional Water Quality Control Board in 1987 authorized Sanitation District (OCSD), the GWR System will pro
an increase in the annual quantity of reclaimed water to tect the groundwater from further degradation due to sea
be used for replenishment from 32,700 acre-feet per year water intrusion and supplement existing water supplies
to 50,000 acre-feet per year (20,270 gpm to 31,000 gpm by providing a new, reliable, high-quality source of water
or 1,280 to 1,955 l/s). In 1991, water reclamation require to recharge the Orange County Groundwater Basin (see
ments for the project were revised to allow for recharge Case Study 2.7.15).
up to 60,000 acre-feet per year (37,200 gpm or 2,350 l/s)
and 50 percent reclaimed water in any one year as long 2.6.4 Direct Potable Water Reuse
as the running 3-year total did not exceed 150,000 acre-
feet per year (93,000 gpm or 5,870 l/s) or 35 percent Direct potable reuse is currently practiced in only one
reclaimed water. The average amount of reclaimed water city in the world, Windhoek, Namibia. This city uses di
spread each year is about 50,000 acre-feet per year rect potable reuse on an intermittent basis only. In the
(31,000 gpm or 1,955 l/s). Continued evaluation of the U.S., the most extensive research focusing on direct
project is being provided by an extensive sampling and potable reuse has been conducted in Denver, Colorado;
monitoring program, and by supplemental research Tampa, Florida; and San Diego, California. A consider
projects pertaining to percolation effects, epidemiology, able investment in potable reuse research has been made
and microbiology. in Denver, Colorado, over a period of more than 20 years.
This research included operation of a 1-mgd (44-l/s) rec
The Rand Corporation has conducted additional health lamation plant in many different process modes over a
studies for the project as part of an ongoing effort to period of about 10 years (Lauer, 1991). The product wa
monitor the health of those consuming reclaimed water ter was reported to be of better quality than many po
in Los Angeles County (Sloss et al., 1996 and Sloss et. table water sources in the region. The San Diego Total
al., 1999). These studies looked at health outcomes for Resource Recovery Project was executed to demonstrate
900,000 people in the Central Groundwater Basin who the feasibility of using natural systems for secondary treat
are receiving some reclaimed water in their household ment with subsequent advanced wastewater treatment
water supplies. These people account for more than 10 to provide a water supply equivalent or better than the
percent of the population of Los Angeles County. To com quality of imported water supplied to the region (WEF/
pare health characteristics, a control area of 700,000 AWWA, 1988). Tables 2-11 and 2-12 show the advanced
people that had similar demographic and socioeconomic wastewater treatment effluent concentrations of miner
characteristics was selected, but did not receive re als, metals, and trace organics for the San Diego Project.
claimed water. The results from these studies have found
that, after almost 30 years of groundwater recharge, there Microbial analysis performed over a 2.5-year period,
is no association between reclaimed water and higher showed that water quality of advanced wastewater treat
rates of cancer, mortality, infectious disease, or adverse ment effluent was low in infectious agents. Specifically,
birth outcomes. research showed:
The Districts, along with water and wastewater agencies Spiking studies were conducted to determine the re
and researchers in 3 western states, are currently con moval level of viruses. Results of 4 runs showed an
ducting research to evaluate the biological, chemical, and overall virus removal rate through the primary, sec
physical treatment processes that occur naturally as the ondary, and advanced wastewater treatment plants
reclaimed water passes through the soil on the way to of between 99.999 9 percent and 99.999 99 percent.
the groundwater. The SAT Project was developed to bet Levels of removal were influenced by the number of
ter understand the impact of SAT on water quality in terms viruses introduced. Viruses were not detected in more
of chemical and microbial pollutants (see Case Study than 20.2 x 104 l of sample.
2.7.16). This work will continue to address emerging is
sues such as the occurrence and significance of phar Enteric bacterial pathogens (that is, Salmonella, Shi-
maceutically active compounds (including endocrine gella, and Campylobacter) were not detected in 51
disruptors and new disinfection byproducts) and stan samples of advanced wastewater treatment effluent.
dardized monitoring techniques capable of determining
pathogen viability. The Groundwater Replenishment Protozoa and metazoa of various types were absent
46
in the advanced wastewater treatment effluent. Gia- Reverse osmosis
rdia lamblia were not recovered, and based on re
covery rates of cysts from raw wastewater, removal Most of these unit processes are well understood. Their
rates were estimated to be 99.9 percent (WEF/ performance can be expected to be effective and reli
AWWA, 1998) able in large, well-managed plants. However, the heavy
burden of sophisticated monitoring for trace contaminants
The treatment train operated in San Diego, after second that is required for potable reuse may be beyond the ca
ary treatment, includes the following processes: pacity of smaller enterprises.
Coagulation with ferric chloride The implementation of direct, pipe-to-pipe, potable reuse
is not likely to be adopted in the foreseeable future in the
Multimedia filtration U.S. for several reasons:
Ultraviolet disinfection Many attitude (opinion) surveys show that the public
will accept and endorse many types of nonpotable
pH adjustment with sulfuric acid reuse while being reluctant to accept potable reuse.
In general, public reluctance to support reuse in-
Cartridge filter
Table 2-11. Physical and Chemical Sampling Results from the San Diego Potable Reuse Study
Minimum Number of
Number of Arithmetic Standard 90th
Constituents Units Detection Samples
Samples Mean Deviation Percentile
Limit < MDL
General
a
COD 611 mg/L 15 6 <15.0 44.8 2.7
pH 892 ⎯ na 892 8.2 0.2 ⎯
SS 116 mg/L 1 68 1.6 3.5 5.6
TOC 611 mg/L 1 85 <1.0 3.0a 1.1
Anions
Chloride 97 mg/L 4 96 33.93 31.39 81.1
a
Fluoride 37 mg/L 0.13 13 <0.125 0.33 0.241
Ammonia 71 mg/L 0.1 69 1.26 2.04 2.92
a
Nitrite 37 mg/L 0.01 13 <0.01 0.05 0.03
Nitrate 91 mg/L 0.05 91 1.81 1.21 5.77
a
Phosphate 88 mg/L 1 28 <1.00 2.70 2.2
Silicate 39 mg/L 0.2 39 1.2 0.42 1.83
Sulfate 96 mg/L 0.1 96 6.45 5.72 14.6
Cations
Boron 24 mg/L 0.1 24 0.24 0.085 0.368
Calcium 21 mg/L 1 16 3.817 12.262 3.87
Iron 21 mg/L 0.01 20 0.054 0.077 0.135
Magnesium 21 mg/L 0.5 16 1.127 6.706 7.89
Manganese 21 mg/L 0.008 18 0.011 0.041 0.042
Potassium 21 mg/L 0.5 14 0.608 2.599 3.42
Sodium 21 mg/L 1 20 16.999 15.072 54.2
Zinc 20 mg/L 0.005 15 0.009 0.008 0.02
a
Analysis gave negative result for mean.
Source: WEF/AWWA, 1998.
47
Table 2-12. San Diego Potable Reuse Study: Heavy Metals and Trace Organics Results
Minimum Number of
Number of Arithmetic Standard
Constituents Units Detection Samples
Samples a Mean Deviation
Limit > MDL
Metals
Arsenic 11 µg/L 1 5 <1 8
b
Cadmium 10 µg/L 1 1 1 0.3

Chromium 19 µg/L 1 10 2 3
Copper 20 µg/L 6 18 18 20
Lead 18 µg/L 1 15 3 7
Mercury 8 µg/L 1 0 1 0c
Nickel 20 µg/L 1.2 19 6 7
Selenium 12 µg/L 6 2 4 3
c
Silver 16 µg/L 5 2 3 4
Organics
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl phthalate) 33 µg/L 2.5 6 <2.50 3.27b
Benzyl/butyl phthalate 33 µg/L 2.5 1 2.5 0.02c
Bromodichloromethane 33 µg/L 3.1 0 3.1 0.00c
Chloroform 33 µg/L 1.6 0 1.6 0.00c
Dibutyl phthalate 33 µg/L 2.5 1 2.64 0.78
c
Dimethylphenol 33 µg/L 2.7 0 2.7 0.00c

Methyl chloride 33 µg/L 2.8 6 <2.80 7.91
b
Naphthalene 33 µg/L 1.6 0 1.6 0

1,1,1 – Trichloroethane 33 µg/L 3.8 0 3.8 0
1,2 – Dichlorobenzene 33 µg/L 4.4 0 4.4 0
4 - Nitrophenol 33 µg/L 2.4 0 2.4 0
Pentachlorophenol 33 µg/L 3.6 0 3.6 0
Phenol 33 µg/L 1.5 0 1.5 0
a
<MDL was taken to be equal to MDL.
b
Analysis gave negative result for mean.
c
Statistics were calculated using conventional formulas.
Source: WEF/AWWA, 1998.
creases as the degree of human contact with re passes through the environment.
claimed water increases. Further, public issues have
been raised relevant to potential health impacts which Direct potable reuse will seldom be necessary. Only
may be present in reclaimed water. a small portion of the water used in a community
needs to be of potable quality. While high quality
Indirect potable reuse is more acceptable to the pub sources will often be inadequate to serve all urban
lic than direct potable reuse, because the water is needs in the future, the use of reclaimed water to
perceived to be “laundered” as it moves through a replace potable quality water for nonpotable pur
river, lake, or aquifer (i.e. the Montebello Forebay poses will release more high quality potable water
and El Paso projects). Indirect reuse, by virtue of for future use.
the residence time in the watercourse, reservoir or
aquifer, often provides additional treatment. Indirect 2.7 Case Studies
reuse offers an opportunity for monitoring the quality
and taking appropriate measures before the water is The following case studies are organized by category
abstracted for distribution. In some instances, how of reuse applications:
ever, water quality may actually be degraded as it
48
Urban Sections 2.7.1

mixing and cleanup), cooling tower make up, fire fighting
through 2.7.6
(suppression and protection), irrigation of all types of veg
etation and landscaping, and all of the nonpotable needs
Industrial Sections 2.7.7
for clean water within the treatment facility.
through 2.7.8
All product water bound for the reuse system is metered.

Agricultural Sections 2.7.9
There is a master meter at the master pumping station,
through 2.7.12
and all customers are metered individually at the point of
service. Rates are typically set at 75 to 80 percent of the
Environmental potable water rate to encourage connection and use.
and Recreational Section 2.7.13 Rates are based on volumetric consumption to discour
age wasteful practices. New customers are required by
Groundwater Recharge Section 2.7.14
tariff to connect to and use the reclaimed water system.
through 2.7.16
If the system is not available, new customers are re
quired to provide a single point of service to facilitate
Augmentation of Potable future connection. Existing customers using potable wa
Supplies Section 2.7.17 ter for nonpotable purposes are included in a master plan
for future conversion to reclaimed water.
Miscellaneous Section 2.7.18
through 2.7.19
Demands for reclaimed water have sometimes exceeded
supply capabilities, especially during the months of April
2.7.1 Water Reuse at Reedy Creek and May, when rainfall is lowest and demand for irrigation
Improvement District is at its highest. RCID has a number of means at its
disposal to counteract this shortfall. The primary means
Reedy Creek Improvement District (RCID) provides mu uses 2, formerly idle, potable water wells to supplement
nicipal services to the Walt Disney World Resort Com the reclaimed water systems during high demand. These
plex, located in Central Florida. In 1989, RCID faced a wells can provide up to 5,000 gpm (315 l/s) of additional
challenge of halting inconsistent water quality discharges supply. A secondary means requests that major, selected
from its wetland treatment system. The solution was a customers return to their prior source of water. Two of
twofold approach: (1) land was purchased for the con the golf courses can return to surface waters for their
struction of rapid infiltration basins (RIBs) and (2) plans needs and some of the cooling towers can be quickly
were drafted for the construction of a reuse distribution converted to potable water use (and back again).
system. The RIBs were completed in 1990. Subse
quently, all surface water discharges ceased. The RIBs Total water demand within RCID ranges from 18 to 25
recharge the groundwater via percolation of applied efflu mgd (180 to 1,100 l/s) for potable and nonpotable uses.
ent to surficial sands and sandy clays. Eighty–five 1 Reclaimed water utilization accounts for 25 to 30 percent
acre basins were built and operate on a 6 to 8 week rota of this demand. Over 6 mgd (260 l/s) is typically con
tional cycle. Typically, 10 or 11 basins are in active ser sumed on an average day and peak day demands have
vice for a 1-week period; while the remaining basins are exceeded 12 mgd (525 l/s). Providing reclaimed water for
inactive and undergo maintenance by discing of the bot nonpotable uses has enabled RCID to remain within its
tom sands. Initially, the RIBs served as the primary consumptive use permit limitations for groundwater with
mechanism for reuse and effluent disposal, receiving 100 drawal, despite significant growth within its boundaries.
percent of the effluent. But the trend has completely re Reclaimed water has been a major resource in enabling
versed in recent years, and the RIBs serve primarily as RCID to meet water use restrictions imposed by the wa
a means of wet-weather recharge or disposal of sub-stan- ter management districts in alleviating recent drought
dard quality water. The majority of the effluent is used impacts. Figure 2-9 is a stacked bar graph that shows
for public access reuse. In the past 3 years, over 60 the historical contribution reclaimed water has made to
percent of the effluent volume was used for public ac the total water resource picture at RCID.
cess reuse.
The continued growth of the RCID reclaimed water sys
Initially, the reclaimed water distribution system served tem is expected to play an ever-increasing and critical
5 golf courses and provided some landscape irrigation role in meeting its water resource needs. Because alter
within RCID. In the past 10 years, the extent and diver native sources of water (e.g., surface water, brackish
sity of uses has grown and now includes washdown of water, and stormwater) are not easily and reliably avail
impervious surfaces, construction (such as concrete able and are prohibitively costly to obtain, it makes eco
49
Figure 2-9. Water Resources at RCID
nomic sense for RCID to maximize its use of reclaimed claimed water system. The first method, a linear extrapo
water. lation model (LEM), assumes that the rate of increasing
water use per capita for 1990 to 2000 increases as it did
2.7.2 Estimating Potable Water Conserved from 1977 to 1989. Then, the amount conserved per year
in Altamonte Springs due to Reuse can be estimated by taking the difference in the potential
value from the linear model and the actual potable water
It is taken for granted that implementing a reclaimed water used. Figure 2-11 predicts the amount of potable water
system for urban irrigation will conserve potable water, saved by implementing the reuse system from 1990 to
but few efforts have been made to quantify the benefits. 2000.
An analysis was performed to define the potential value
of urban reuse for a moderately sized city, Altamonte The other method used a more conservative, constant
Springs, Florida. Altamonte Springs began implementing model (CCM). This model averages the gallons of po
its reclaimed water system in 1990. table water per capita-day from the years before reuse
and assumes that the average is constant for the years
First, annual potable water-use data were analyzed to after reuse. Figure 2-12 indicates this model’s estimate
ascertain if a significant difference could be seen be of potable water conserved.
tween periods before and after reuse. Figure 2-10 shows
the historical potable water demands from 1977 to 2000, In the year 2000, the LEM model estimates that 102 gal
expressed as gallons of water used per capita per day. lons per capita-day (386 liters per capita-day) of potable
water are saved. In the same year, the CCM method
Figure 2-10 indicates a much greater potable water de estimates a net savings of 69 gallons per capita-day.
mand before reuse was implemented than after. In 1990, Figure 2-13 shows the comparison of the amount con
the demand dropped by about 20 gallons per capita-day served using the 2 different methods.
(76 liters per capita-day) in just one year.
Two differing methods were used to estimate the total

potable water conserved through implementing a re
50
2.7.3 How Using Potable Supplies to How Augmentation Can Help

Supplement Reclaimed Water Flows
can Increase Conservation, While peak season demand is what limits the number of
Hillsborough County, Florida customers a utility can connect, it is also short lived,
lasting between 60 to 90 days. Augmenting reclaimed
Ensuring that an adequate source is available is one of water supplies during this time of peak demand can al
the first steps in evaluating a potable water project. low a municipality to increase the number of customers
However, consideration of how many reclaimed water served with reclaimed water while preserving the reliabil
customers can be supplied by the flows from a water ity (level of service) of the system. To illustrate this point,
reclamation facility is seldom part of the reuse planning consider the Hillsborough County South/Central reclaimed
process. The problem with this approach has become water system. Reclaimed water supplies from the
apparent in recent years, as a number of large urban Falkenburg, Valrico, and South County Water Reclama
reuse systems have literally run out of water during peak tion Facilities (WRFs) are expected to be an annual av
reclaimed water demand times. erage of 12.67 mgd (555 l/s) in 2002. However, to avoid
shortfalls in the peak demand season, the County will
In order to understand why this happens, it is important need to limit connections to an average annual demand
to understand the nature of demands for reclaimed water. of 7.34 mgd (321 l/s) or less. The County presently has a
Figure 2-14 illustrates expected seasonal reclaimed waiting list of customers that would demand an annual
water demands for irrigation in southwest Florida. Ev average of approximately 10.69 mgd (468 l/s). What if
ery operator of a potable water system in this area ex augmentation water were used to allow the County to
pects demands to increase by 20 to 30 percent during connect these customers instead of making these cus
April through June as customers use drinking water to tomers wait? Water balance calculations indicate that
meet peak season irrigation demands. For reclaimed from July through March, there will be more than enough
water systems, which are dedicated to meeting urban reclaimed water to meet expected demands. However,
irrigation demands, the peak season demands may in in April, May, and June, reclaimed water demands will
crease by 50 to 100 percent of the average annual de exceed available supplies and customers will experience
mand. It is, of course, the ability to meet these peak shortages. Using a temporary augmentation supply of
season demands that define the reliability of a utility sys water could offset these shortages during this 60 to 90
tem, including a reclaimed water system. day period.
Figure 2-10. Altamonte Springs Annual Potable Water Demands per Capita
51
Figure 2-11. Estimated Potable Water Conserved Using Best LEM Method
Figure 2-12. Estimated Potable Water Conserved Using the CCM Method
52
Figure 2-13. Estimated Potable Water Conserved Using Both Method
Figure 2-14. Estimated Raw Water Supply vs. Demand for the 2002 South/Central Service Area
Figure 2-14 illustrates the expected seasonal supply limited reclaimed water system is constrained by peak
curve for 2002. The bottom curve shows the expected seasonal demands (not exceeding supply) since custom
demand for the limited case where the County does not ers expect year round service. For the system to meet
augment its water supplies. The top curve indicates how all of the potential demands that have been identified,
the County can meet current demand by augmenting its sufficient reclaimed water augmentation must be used
reclaimed water supply during April through June. The to make up the differences in supply and demand.
53
The obvious question that must be answered is, “Can need for augmentation of their reclaimed water system
using supplemental water actually conserve water re during peak reclaimed water demand periods.
sources?” The answer is yes, to a point. The existing,
limited reuse system serves an average annual demand 2.7.4 Water Reclamation and Reuse Offer
of 7.34 mgd (321 l/s), conserving an annual average of an Integrated Approach to
6.07 mgd (266 l/s) of potable water resources. This level Wastewater Treatment and Water
of conservation is based on the County’s experiences Resources Issues in Phoenix,
with reductions in potable water demand after reclaimed Arizona.
water becomes available. In order to provide service to
the entire 10.69 mgd (468 l/s) reclaimed water demand, The rapidly developing area of North Phoenix is placing
the County will need an average annual supply of supple ever-increasing demands on the city’s existing waste
mental water of 0.5 mgd (22 l/s). For the purposes of water collection system, wastewater treatment plants,
this analysis, it is assumed this supplemental water and potable water resources. As an integrated solution
comes from the potable water system and so is sub to these issues, water reclamation and reuse have be
tracted from the “Annual Average Potable Water Con come an important part of Phoenix Water Services
served.” This 0.5 mgd potable water supplemental sup Department’s operational strategy.
ply increases the total volume of water conserved from
6.07 to 7.23 mgd (266 to 321 l/s). Therefore, 1.16 mgd Cave Creek Reclaimed Water Reclamation Plant
(51 l/s) more potable water is conserved by using supple (CCWRP), in northeast Phoenix, began operation in Sep
mental water. Therefore, an investment of 0.5 mgd (22 l/ tember 2001. The facility uses an activated sludge nitri-
s) of supplemental water allows the County to save 1.16 fication/denitrification process along with filtration and
mgd (51 l/s) of potable water resources or, put another ultraviolet light disinfection to produce a tertiary-grade
way, for each gallon (3.8 liters) of supplemental water effluent that meets the Arizona Department of Environ
used we realize a 2.32-gallon (8.8-liter) increase in water mental Quality’s A+ standards. CCWRP is currently able
resources conserved. There are, of course, limitations to treat 8 mgd (350 l/s) and has an expansion capacity of
to this practice. As more supplemental water is used, 32 mgd (1,400 l/s).
the amount of reclaimed water used (as a percentage of
the total demand) decreases. Eventually, the supplemen The Phoenix reclamation plant delivers reclaimed water
tal water used will be equal to the water resources con through a nonpotable distribution system to golf courses,
served. That is the break-even point. In this case po parks, schools, and cemeteries for irrigation purposes.
table water was used as the supplemental water, but in The reclaimed water is sold to customers at 80 percent
reality, other nonpotable supplies, such as raw ground of the potable water rate.
water, would likely be used.
CCWRP’s sister facility, North Gateway Water Reclama
Short-term supplementation, such as that described tion Plant (NGWRP), will serve the northwest portion of
above, is one of many tools that can be used by a re Phoenix. The design phase has been completed. The
claimed water provider to optimize its system. Utilities NGWRP will have an initial treatment capacity of 4 mgd
can also maximize their existing reclaimed water re (175 l/s) with an ultimate capacity of 32 mgd (1,400 l/s).
sources and increase efficiency by instituting Best Man The plant is modeled after the Cave Creek facility using
agement Practices (BMPs). Examples of BMPs include the “don’t see it, don’t hear it, don’t smell it” design man
individual metering, volume-based, water-conserving tra. Construction will be preformed using the construc
rate structures, planned interruption, peak season “in tion manager-at-risk delivery method.
terruptible service”, and time-of-day and day-of-week re
strictions. When a reclaimed water provider is already Phoenix is using geographic information system (GIS)
experiencing either a long-term supply/demand imbalance technology to develop master plans for the buildout of
or temporary drought effects, that provider should first the reclaimed water distribution system for both the Cave
use BMPs, before considering reclaimed water supple Creek and North Gateway reclamation plants. Through
mentation. Utilities should also investigate opportunities GIS, potential reclaimed water customers are easily
for enhanced reclaimed water storage capacity including identified. GIS also provides information useful for de
innovative technological solutions, such as aquifer stor termining pipe routing, reservoir, and pump station lo
age and recovery, and wet-weather discharge points that cations. The goal is to interconnect the 2 facilities, thus
produce a net environmental benefit. Instituting BMPs building more reliability and flexibility into the system.
and the other options mentioned can enable a reclaimed The GIS model is dynamically linked to the water sys
water utility to delay, lessen, or potentially eliminate the tem, planning, and other important databases so that
geospacial information is constantly kept up to date. A
54
hydraulic model is being used in conjunction with the (871 m3/d). The facility has a design capacity to reclaim
GIS model to optimize system operation. up to 1.0 mgd (44 l/s). State standards require the use of
treatment techniques for source control, oxidation, co
Irrigation demand in Phoenix varies dramatically with the agulation, filtration, and disinfection. Final reclaimed wa
seasons, so groundwater recharge and recovery is a key ter requirements include a daily average turbidity of less
component of the water reuse program. Phoenix is cur than 2.0 NTU with no values above 5.0 NTU, total coliform
rently exploring the use of vadose zone wells because less than 2.2 per 100 ml as a 7-day median value and
they do not require much space and are relatively inex total nitrogen below 10 mg/l. Major facility components
pensive to construct. This method also provides addi include a septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) collection
tional treatment to the water as it percolates into the system, activated sludge biological treatment with nitro
aquifer. A pilot vadose zone well facility has been con gen removal using Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) tech
structed at the NGWRP site to determine the efficacy of nology, flow equalization, an automated chemical feed
this technology. A vadose zone recharge facility along system with in-line static mixers to coagulate remaining
with a recovery well is being designed for the CCWRP solids prior to filtration, a continuous backwash, upflow
site. sand media filtration system, and chlorine disinfection.
The facility also includes an on-line computer monitoring
Nonpotable reuse and groundwater recharge with high system. Process monitors provide continuous monitor
quality effluent play an important role in the City’s water ing of flow, turbidity, and chlorine residual. Alarms pro
resources and operating strategies. The North Phoenix vide warning when turbidity reaches 2.0 NTU, the flow to
Reclaimed Water System (Figure 2-15) integrates mul the filters shuts off at 3.0 NTU, and the intermediate
tiple objectives, such as minimizing the impact of devel pumps shut down at 3.5 NTU. Chlorine concentrations
opment in the existing wastewater infrastructure by treating are set for an auto-dialer alarm if the flash mixer falls
wastewater locally and providing a new water resource in below 1.5 mg/l or if the final residual is below 0.75 mg/l.
a desert environment. By using state-of-the-art technol Only reclaimed water that meets the required standard is
ogy, such as GIS, Phoenix will be able to plan the buildout sent to upland use areas.
of the reclaimed water system to maximize its efficiency
and minimize costs. Reclaimed water in Yelm is primarily used for seasonal
urban landscape irrigation at local schools and churches,
2.7.5 Small and Growing Community: city parks, and a private residence along the distribu
Yelm, Washington tion route. The true showcase of the Yelm project is
Cochrane Memorial Park, an aesthetically pleasing 8
The City of Yelm, Washington, a community of 3,500 acre city park featuring constructed surface and sub
residents, is considered one of western Washington’s merged wetlands designed to polish the reclaimed water
fastest growing cities. In response to a determination prior to recharging groundwater. In the center of the park,
from Thurston County that the continued use of septic a fishpond uses reclaimed water to raise and maintain
systems in the Yelm area posed a risk to public health, stocked rainbow trout for catch and release. The City
the City developed a sewage plan. The original plan was also uses reclaimed water for treatment plant equipment
to treat and discharge wastewater to the Nisqually River. washdown and process water, fire fighting, street clean
However, the headwaters of the Nisqually River begin in ing, and dust control.
Mount Rainier National Park and end in a National Wild
life Refuge before discharging into the Puget Sound Es Although summers in western Washington are quite dry,
tuary. The river supports 5 species of Pacific salmon— during the winter rainy season there is not sufficient irri
chinook, coho, pink, chum, and steelhead—as well as gation demand for reclaimed water. Excess water is sent
sea-run cutthroat trout. Based on a settlement agree to generate power in the Centralia Power Canal, a diver
ment with local environmental groups, the City agreed to sion from the Nisqually River. Based on state law, re
pursue upland reuse of their Class A reclaimed water claimed water that meets both the reclamation standards
with the goal of eliminating the Nisqually River as a waste and state and federal surface water quality requirements
water discharge location to augment surface water bod is “no longer considered a wastewater.” However, per their
ies only during times when reclaimed water could not be settlement agreement, Yelm is continuing to pursue the
used 100 percent upland. Reclaimed water also plays a goal of 100 percent upland reuse via a program to add
very important role in water conservation as Yelm has reclaimed water customers and uses.
limited water resources.
Yelm recently updated its Comprehensive Water Plan to
The reclamation plant went on line in August of 1999 and emphasize an increased dependence on reclaimed wa
currently reclaims and reuses approximately 230,000 gpd ter to replace potable water consumption to the greatest
55
Figure 2-15. North Phoenix Reclaimed Water System
56
extent possible. The City is constructing storage capac (Table 2-13). Reclaimed water from the Hervey Plant has
ity to provide collection of reclaimed water during non- the lowest salinity (680 ppm), and a large portion of it is
peak periods for distribution during periods of peak de now being injected into an aquifer for recovery as po
mand. This will allow more efficient use of reclaimed water table water. Reclaimed water from the Haskell Plant and
and eliminate the need for potable make-up water. Yelm the Northwest plant have elevated levels of salinity, and
is planning to use reclaimed water for bus washing, con are likely to be the principal reclaimed sources for irriga
crete manufacturing, and additional irrigation purposes. tion from now into the near future. The cause of elevated
salinity at the Northwest Plant is currently being investi
Sources: Washington State Department of Ecology and gated, and it appears to be related to intrusion of shallow
City of Yelm, 2003. saline groundwater into sewer collection systems located
in the valley where high water tables prevail.
2.7.6 Landscape Uses of Reclaimed Water
with Elevated Salinity: Reuse of reclaimed water from the Hervey Plant on a
El Paso, Texas golf course proceeded without any recognizable ill ef
fects on turf or soil quality. This golf course is located
Because of declining reserves of fresh groundwater and on sandy soils developed to about 2 feet (60 cm) over a
an uncertain supply of surface water, the Public Service layer of caliche, which is mostly permeable. Broadleaf
Board, the governing body of El Paso Water Utilities, trees have experienced some foliar damage, but not to
has adopted a strategy to curtail irrigation use of potable the extent of receiving frequent user complaints. This
water by substituting reclaimed municipal effluent. This golf course uses low pressure, manual sprinklers, and
strategy has been implemented in stages, starting with plantings consist mostly of pines, which are spray resis
irrigation of a county-operated golf course using second tant. Reuse of reclaimed water from the Northwest Plant,
ary effluent from the Haskell Plant, and a city-owned golf however, has caused severe foliar damage to a large
course with tertiary treated effluent from the Fred Hervey number of broadleaf trees (Miyamoto and White, 2002).
Plant. More recently, the reuse projects were expanded This damage has been more extensive than what was
to use secondary effluent from the Northwest Plant to projected based on the total dissolved salts of 1200 ppm.
irrigate a private golf course, municipal parks, and school However, this reclaimed water source has a Na concen
grounds (Ornelas and Brosman, 2002). Reclaimed water tration equal to or higher than saline reclaimed water
use from the Haskell Plant is also being expanded to sources in this part of the Southwest (Table 2-13). Foliar
include parks and school grounds. damage is caused primarily through direct salt adsorp
tion through leaves. This damage can be minimized by
Salinity of reclaimed water ranges from 680 to 1200 ppm reducing direct sprinkling onto the tree canopy. The use
as total dissolved salts (TDS) depending on the plant of low-trajectory nozzles or sprinklers was found to be
Table 2-13. Average Discharge Rates and Quality of Municipal Reclaimed Effluent in El Paso and
Other Area Communities
Plant Reuse Water Quality

Treatm ent Plants Capacity Area Soil Type
TDS EC Na Cl
(m gd) (acres) SAR
(ppm ) (dS m 1) (ppm ) (ppm )
El Paso
Fred Hervey 10 150 680 0.9 3.7 150 180 Calciorthid, Aridisols
Haskell 27 329 980 1.6 7.3 250 280 Torrifluvent, Entisols
Northwest 17 194 1200 2.2 11.0 350 325 Paleorthid, Aridisols
1
Alamogordo -- -- 1800 2.7 2 310 480 Camborthid, Aridisols
2
Odessa -- -- 1650 2.4 1.9 330 520 Paleustal, Alfisols
1
These water sources contain substantial quantities of Ca and SO4.
2
Reclaimed water quality of this source changes with season.
Sources: Ornela and Brosman, 2002; Miyamoto and White, 2002; Ornelas and Miyamoto, 2003; and Miyamoto,
2003.
57
effective through a test program funded by the Bureau of any existing use of tertiary treated wastewater in fabric
Reclamation (Ornelas and Miyamoto, 2003). This finding dyeing.
is now used to contain salt-induced foliar damage.
General Dye and Finishing (General Dye) is a fabric dye
Another problem associated with the conversion to re ing facility located in Santa Fe Springs, California. This
claimed water has been the sporadic occurrence of salt facility uses between 400 and 500 acre-feet per year (250
spots on the turf in areas where drainage is poor. This to 310 gpm) of water, primarily in their dye process and
problem has been contained through trenching and for boiler feed. CBMWD is working with the plant man
subsoiling. Soil salinization problems were also noted in ager to convert the facility from domestic potable water
municipal parks and school grounds that were irrigated to reclaimed water for these industrial purposes.
with potable water in the valley where clayey soils pre
vail. This problem is projected to increase upon conver A 1-day pilot test was conducted on October 15, 2002
sion to reclaimed water from the Haskell Plant unless using reclaimed water in one of the 12 large dye ma
salt leaching is improved. The Texas A&M Research Cen chines used at the facility. A temporary connection was
ter at El Paso has developed a guideline for soil selec made directly to the dye machine fill line using a 1-inch
tion (Miyamoto, 2003), and El Paso City Parks, in coop hose from an air release valve on the CBMWD reclaimed
eration with Texas A&M Research Center, are initiating water system. General Dye conducted 2 tests with the
a test program to determine cost-effective methods of reclaimed water, using reactive dye with a polycotton
enhancing salt leaching. Current indications are that in blend and using dispersed dye with a 100-percent poly
creased soil aerification activities, coupled with ester fabric.
topdressing with sand, may prove to be an effective
measure. If the current projection holds, reuse projects Both test loads used about 800 pounds of fabric with
in El Paso are likely to achieve the primary goal, while blue dyes. The identical means and methods of the dye
demonstrating that reclaimed water with high Na and Cl ing process typically employed by General Dye with do
concentrations (greater than 359 ppm) can be used ef mestic water were also followed using reclaimed water.
fectively even in highly diverse soil conditions through General Dye did not notice any difference in the dyeing
site improvements and modified management practices. process or quality of the end product using the reclaimed
water versus domestic water.
2.7.7 Use of Reclaimed Water in a Fabric
Dyeing Industry A 1-week demonstration test was conducted between
November 20 and November 27, 2002, based on the
The Central Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD) successful results of the 1-day pilot test. A large variety
reclaimed water system began operation in 1992 and of colors were used during the demonstration test. No
currently serves approximately 3,700 acre-feet per year other parameters were changed. Everything was done
(2,300 gpm) for a variety of irrigation, commercial, and exactly the same with the reclaimed water that would
industrial uses. Industrial customers include the success have been done with the domestic water. As with the
ful conversion of Tuftex Carpets in Santa Fe Springs, pilot test, the results indicated that reclaimed water can
which was the first application in California of reclaimed successfully be used in the fabric dyeing process, re
water used for carpet dyeing. A significant benefit to us sulting in plans for a full conversion of the General Dye
ing reclaimed water is the consistency of water quality. facility to reclaimed water for all process water needs.
This reduces the adjustments required by the dye house
that had previously been needed due to varying sources 2.7.8 Survey of Power Plants Using
of water (e.g. Colorado River, State Water Project, or Reclaimed Water for Cooling Water
groundwater). Since completion of the initial system,
CBMWD has continued to explore expansion possibili A wide variety of power facilities throughout the U.S. were
ties, looking at innovative uses of reclaimed water. contacted and asked to report on their experience with
the use of treated wastewater effluent as cooling water.
The fabric dyeing industry represents a significant po Table 2-14 presents a tabulation of data obtained from
tential for increased reclaimed water use in CBMWD and contacts with various power facilities and related waste
in the neighboring West Basin Municipal Water District water treatment plants that supply them with effluent
(WBMWD). More than 15 dye houses are located within water. Table 2-14 also provides a general summary of
the 2 Districts, with a potential demand estimated to be the treatment process for each WWTP and identifies treat
greater than 4,000 acre-feet per year (2,500 gpm). A na ment performed at the power plant.
tional search of reclaimed water uses did not identify
58
Table 2-14. Treatment Processes for Power Plant Cooling Water
Ave rage Cooling Wate r Was te w ate r Tre atm e nt Tre atm e nt for Cooling
Pow e r Facility & Location
Supply & Re turn Flow (m gd) Plant Proce s s e s Wate r (by Pow e r Plant)
Supply = 0.65 Further treatment with

Return = 0 Secondary treatment with
1. Lancaster County clarification process, Flash
Zero discharge; all Alum, Floc & Polymer;
Resource Recovery Facility Mix, Slow Mix. Also additions
Additions settle solids,
Marietta, PA blow -dow n evaporated or of ferric sulfate, polymer &
remove phosphorus
leaves plant in sludge. sodium hypochlorite
Supply = 0.3 – 0.6 (make-up
supply to cooling towers) Blow- Water chemistry controlled
Secondary Treatment, 85%
2. PSE&G Ridgefield Park, NJ down disposed of with plant with biocide, pH control, and
minimum removal of solids
wastewater to local sewer surfactant
system.
3. Hillsborough County Solid Waste Supply = 0.7 (includes irrigation Advanced treatment with Chlorine addition, biocide,
to Energy Recovery Facility water) Blow-down of 0.093-mgd high level of disinfection. surfactant, tri-sodium
(operated by O gden Martin Corp.) mixed with plant wastewater is Partial tertiary treatment, phosphate, pH control with
Tampa, FL returned to WWTP. removes phosphorus. sulfuric acid.
Advanced Secondary
Supply = 2.72 (annual avg.) to treatment with nitrification,
Clark Sta. denitrification and biological None at present time.
4. Nevada Power – Clark and
Return = 0 phosphorus removal. Previously treated with lime
Sunrise Stations
Blow-down is discharged to Tertiary treatment through & softener; discontinued 2-3
Las Vegas, NV
holding ponds for dual media filter & years ago.
evaporation disinfection in chlorine
contact tank.
Supply = 0.65 Addition of corrosion

Primary & secondary
Cooling tower blow-down is inhibitors, sodium
5. Panda Brandywine Facility settling. Biological nutrient
discharged to a local sewage hypochlorite, acid for pH
Brandywine, MD removal, with post filtration
system and eventually returned control, and anti-foaming
via sand filters.
to the WWTP. agents.
Tertiary treatment
El Segundo: Ammonia
Stripping plant across
Richmond Plant uses Nalco
6. Chevron Refineries; El Segundo, CA Approx = 3-5 street.
Chemical for further
Richmond, CA Return = 0 Richmond: Caustic Soda
treatment.
Treatment Plant Specifically
for Chevron.
Supply = 10 PH adjustment with acid,

Advanced Wastewater
Return = 0 addition of scale inhibitors
7. Curtis Stanton Energy Center treatment including filtration,
Blow-down is evaporated in and chlorine. Control of
O range County, FL (near disinfection & biological
brine concentrator and calcium level. All chemical
O rlando) nutrient removal to within
crystallizer units at power plant adjustments done at cooling
5:5:3:1*
for zero discharge. towers.
Tertiary treatment plant
consisting of trickling filters
WWTPs provide secondary for ammonia removal, 1s t and
Total Supply to (3) units = 72 treatment. Treated effluent 2 nd stage clarifiers for
8. Palo Verde Nuclear Plant Return = 0 not transmitted to Palo removal of phosphorus,
Phoenix, AZ Zero discharge facility; all blow Verde is discharged to magnesium, and silica.
down is evaporated in ponds. riverbeds (wetlands) under Cooling tower water is
State of Arizona permits. further controlled by addition
of dispersants, defoaming
agents, and sodium
* 5:5:3:1 refers to constituent limits of 5 mg/l BOD, 5 mg/l TSS, 3 mg/l nitrogen and 1 mg/l phosphorus.
Source: DeStefano, 2000
59
It is important to note that, in all cases for the facilities Major crops produced include corn, soybeans, coastal
contacted, the quality of wastewater treatment at each Bermuda grass, and rye. Corn is stored as high-moisture
WWTP is governed by the receiving water body where grain prior to sale, and soybeans are sold upon harvest.
the treated effluent is discharged, and its classification. Both the rye and Bermuda grass are grazed by cattle.
For example, if the water body serves as a source of Some of the Bermuda grass is harvested as hay and
drinking water or is an important fishery, any treated haylage. Cows are allows to graze in winter.
effluent discharged into it would have to be of high qual
ity. Effluent discharged to an urban river or to the ocean 2.7.10 Spray Irrigation at Durbin Creek
could be of lower quality. WWTP Western Carolina Regional
Sewer Authority
2.7.9 Agricultural Reuse in Tallahassee,
Florida The Durbin Creek Wastewater Treatment Facility, lo
cated near Fountain Inn, South Carolina, is operated by
The Tallahassee agricultural reuse system is a coop the Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority (WCRSA).
erative operation where the city owns and maintains the The plant discharges to Durbin Creek, a relatively small
irrigation system, while the farming service is under con tributary of the Enoree River. Average flow from the Durbin
tract to commercial enterprise. During the evolution of Creek Plant is 1.37 mgd (5.2 x 103 m3/day) with a peak
the system since 1966, extensive evaluation and opera flow of 6.0 mgd (22.7 x 103 m3/day) during storm events.
tional flexibility have been key factors in its success. The plant is permitted for an average flow of 3.3 mgd
(12.5 x 103 m3/day).
The City of Tallahassee was one of the first cities in
Florida to use reclaimed water for agricultural purposes. The Durbin Creek plant is located on an 200-acre (81
In 1966, the City began to use reclaimed water from its hectare) site. Half of the site is wooded with the remain
secondary wastewater treatment plant for spray irriga ing half cleared for land application of biosolids. Hay is
tion. In 1971, detailed studies showed that the system harvested in the application fields. Much of the land sur
was successful in producing crops for agricultural use. rounding the plant site is used as a pasture and for hay
The studies also concluded that the soil was effective at production without the benefit of biosolids applications.
removing SS, BOD, bacteria, and phosphorus from the
reclaimed water. Until 1980, the system was limited to As a result of increasingly stringent NPDES permit lim
irrigation of 120 acres (50 hectares) of land used for hay its and the limited assimilative capacity of the receiving
production. Based upon success of the early studies and stream, WCRSA began a program to eliminate surface
experience, a new spray field was constructed in 1980, water discharge at this facility. Commencing in 1995,
southeast of Tallahassee. WCRSA undertook a detailed evaluation of land applica
tion and reuse at Durbin Creek. The initial evaluation fo
The southeast spray field has been expanded 3 times cused on controlling ammonia discharged to the receiv
since 1980, increasing its total area to approximately ing stream by combining agricultural irrigation with a
2100 acres (840 hectares). The permitted application rate hydrograph-controlled discharge strategy.
of the site is 3.16 inches per week (8 cm per week), for a
total capacity of 24.5 mgd (1073 l/s). Sandy soils ac In order to appreciate the potential for reuse and land
count for the high application rate. The soil composition application to address current permit issues facing the
is about 95 percent sand, with an interspersed clay layer Durbin Creek WWTP, a brief discussion of their origin is
at a depth of approximately 33 feet (10 meters). The spray necessary. South Carolina develops waste load alloca
field has gently rolling topography with surface eleva tions calculated by a model that is based on EPA dis
tions ranging from 20 to 70 feet (6 to 21 meters) above charge criteria. Model inputs include stream flow, back
sea level. ground concentrations of ammonia, discharge volume,
water temperature, pH, and whether or not salmonids are
Secondary treatment is provided to the City’s Thomas present. Because water temperature is part of the model
P. Smith wastewater reclamation plant and the Lake input, a summer (May through October) and a winter (No
Bradford Road wastewater reclamation plant. The re vember through April) season are recognized in the cur
claimed water produced by these wastewater reclama rent NPDES permit. Ammonia concentrations associated
tion plants meet water quality requirements of 20 mg/l with both acute and chronic toxicity are part of the model
for BOD and TSS, and 200/100 ml for fecal coliform. output. The stream flow used in the model is the esti
Reclaimed water is pumped approximately 8.5 miles (13.7 mated 7-day, 10-year low flow event (7Q10). For the re
km) from the treatment plant to the spray field and dis ceiving stream, the 7Q10 value is 2.9 cfs (0.08 m3/s).
tributed via 16 center-pivot irrigation units.
60
The permitted flow of 3.3 mgd (12.5 x 103 m3/day) is The next step was to evaluate various methods of di
used as the discharge volume in the model. verting or withholding a portion of the design discharge
flow under certain stream flow conditions.
A detailed evaluation of the characteristics of the receiv
ing water body flow was required to evaluate the potential The most prominent agricultural enterprise in the vicinity
of reuse to address the proposed NPDES limits. The prob of the Durbin Creek WWTP is hay production. Thus,
ability of occurrence of a given 7-day low flow rate was WCRSA decided to investigate agricultural reuse as its
then determined using an appropriate probability distri first alternative disposal method.
bution. The annual summer and winter 7Q10 flows for the
Durbin Creek site were then estimated with the following To evaluate how irrigation demands might vary over the
results: summer season, a daily water balance was developed
to calculate irrigation demands. The irrigation water bal
Annual 7Q10 2.9 cfs (0.08 m3/s) ance was intended to calculate the consumptive need of
an agricultural crop as opposed to hydraulic capacities
Summer 7Q10 (May through October) of a given site. This provision was made because farm
2.9 cfs (0.08 m3/s) ers who would potentially receive reclaimed water in the
future would be interested in optimizing hay production
Winter 7Q10 (November through April) and could tolerate excess irrigation as a means of dis
6.4 cfs (0.18 m3/s) posal. Results of this irrigation water balance were then
combined with the expected stream flow to evaluate the
The predicted annual 7Q10 of 2.9 cfs (0.08 m3/s) matched requirements of integrating agricultural irrigation with a
the value used by the state regulatory agency and con hydrograph control strategy.
firmed the validity of the analysis. The winter 7Q10 was
found to be more than double that of the summer 7Q10. The results of this analysis are provided in Figure 2-16,
This information was then used in conjunction with the which indicates the storage volume required as a func
state’s ammonia toxicity model to develop a conceptual tion of the irrigated area given a design flow of 3.3 mgd
summer and winter discharge permit for effluent discharge (12.5 x 103 m3/day). As shown in Figure 2-16, if no irri
based on stream flow. gated area is provided, a storage volume of approximately
240 million gallons (900 x 103 m3) would be required to
Figure 2-16. Durbin Creek Storage Requirements as a Function of Irrigated Area
61
achieve compliance with a streamflow dependent per or on samples of crops grown with the reclaimed water.
mit. This storage volume decreases dramatically to ap No tendency was found for metals to accumulate in soils
proximately 50 million gallons (190 x 103 m3) if 500 acres or on plant tissues. Soil permeability was not impaired.
(200 hectares) of irrigated area are developed. As irri By the time the study was completed in 1987, the project
gated area increases from 500 to 1,200 acres (200 to had gained widespread community support for water rec
490 hectares), the corresponding ratio of increased irri lamation.
gated area to reduction in storage is less. As indicated in
Figure 2-16, storage could hypothetically be completely As a result of the MWRSA, a water reclamation plant
eliminated given an irrigated area of approximately 1,900 and distribution system were completed in 1997. The
acres (770 hectares). The mathematical modeling of project was designed to serve 12,000 acres (4,850 hect
stream flows and potential demands has demonstrated ares) of artichokes, lettuce, cauliflower, broccoli, celery,
that reuse is a feasible means of achieving compliance and strawberries. Delivery of reclaimed water was de
with increasingly stringent NPDES requirements in South layed until spring of 1998 to address new concerns about
Carolina. emerging pathogens. The reclaimed water was tested for
E. Coli 0157:H7, Legionella, Salmonella, Giardia,
2.7.11 Agricultural Irrigation of Vegetable Cryptosporidium, and Cyclospora. No viable organisms
Crops: Monterey, California were found and the results were published in the Re-
cycled Water Food Safety Study. This study increased
Agriculture in Monterey County, located in the central grower and buyer confidence. Currently, 95 percent of
coastal area of California, is a $3 billion per year busi the project acreage is voluntarily using reclaimed water.
ness. The northern part of the county produces a vari
ety of vegetable crops, many of which may be consumed Growers felt strongly that health department regulations
raw. As far back as the 1940s, residential, commercial, should be minimal regarding use of reclaimed water.
industrial, and agricultural users were overdrawing the The MRWPCA succeeded in getting the County Health
County’s northern groundwater supply. This overdraw Department to approve wording requirements for signs
lowered the water tables and created an increasing prob along public roads through the project to say, “No Tres
lem of saltwater intrusion. In the mid-1970s, the Califor passing,” rather than previously proposed wording that
nia Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board was detrimental to public acceptance of reclaimed wa
completed a water quality management plan for the area, ter. Similarly, field worker safety training requires only
recommending reclaimed water for crop irrigation. that workers not drink the water, and that they wash their
hands before eating or smoking after working with re
At that time, agricultural irrigation of vegetable crops with claimed water.
reclaimed water was not widely accepted. To respond to
questions and concerns from the agricultural community, Three concerns remain: safety, water quality, and long
the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency term soil health. To address safety, pathogen testing
(MRWPCA) sponsored an 11-year, $7-million pilot and continues and results are routinely placed on the
demonstration project known as the Monterey Wastewa MRWPCA website at www.mrwpca.org. The water qual
ter Reclamation Study for Agriculture (MWRSA). Study ity concern is partly due to chloride, but mostly due to
objectives were to find answers to questions about such sodium concentration levels. MRWPCA works with sewer
issues as virus and bacteria survival on crops, soil per users to voluntarily reduce salt levels by using more ef
meability, and yield and quality of crops, as well as to ficient water softeners, and by changing from sodium
provide a demonstration of field operations for farmers chloride to potassium chloride for softener regenera
who would use reclaimed water. tion. In 1999, the agency began a program of sampling
soils from 3 different depth ranges 3 times each season
Five years of field operations were conducted, irrigating from 4 control sites (using well water) and 9 test sites
crops with 2 types of tertiary treated wastewater, with a (using reclaimed water). Preliminary results indicate that
well water control for comparison. Artichokes, broccoli, using reclaimed water for vegetable production is not
cauliflower, celery, and several varieties of lettuce were causing the soil to become saline.
grown on test plots and a demonstration field. Crops pro
duced with reclaimed water were healthy and vigorous, 2.7.12 Water Conserv II: City of Orlando and
and the system operated without complications. The re Orange County, Florida
sults of the study provided evidence that using reclaimed
water can be as safe as irrigating with well water, and As a result of a court decision in 1979, the City of Or
that large scale water reclamation can be accomplished. lando and Orange County, Florida, were mandated to
No virus was found in reclaimed water used for irrigation cease discharge of their effluent into Shingle Creek, which
62
flows into Lake Tohopekaliga, by March 1988. The City it profitably, provide a safe and clean environment, find
and County immediately joined forces to find the best solutions to challenges facing citrus growers, and pro
and most cost-effective solution. Following several rounds mote urban and rural cooperation. All research conducted
of extensive research, the decision was made to con by the MFCF is located within the Water Conserv II ser
struct a reuse project in West Orange and Southeast vice area. Reclaimed water is used on 163 of the 168
Lake counties along a high, dry, and sandy area known acres of research. MFCF research work began in 1987.
as the Lake Wales Ridge. The project was named Water
Conserv II. The primary use of the reclaimed water would Research results to date have been positive. The ben
be for agricultural irrigation. Daily flows not needed for efits of irrigating with reclaimed water have been con
irrigation would be distributed into rapid infiltration basins sistently demonstrated through research since 1987.
(RIBs) for recharge of the Floridan aquifer. Citrus on ridge (sandy, well drained) soils respond well
to irrigation with reclaimed water. No significant prob
Water Conserv II is the largest reuse project of its type lems have resulted from the use of reclaimed water. Tree
in the world, a combination of agricultural irrigation and condition and size, crop size, and soil and leaf mineral
RIBs. It is also the first reuse project in Florida permitted aspects of citrus trees irrigated with reclaimed water are
by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection typically as good as, if not better than, groves irrigated
to irrigate crops produced for human consumption with with well water. Fruit quality from groves irrigated with
reclaimed water. The project is best described as “a co reclaimed water was similar to groves irrigated with well
operative reuse project by the City of Orlando, Orange water. The levels of boron and phosphorous required in
County, and the agricultural community.” The City and the soil for good citrus production are present in adequate
County jointly own Water Conserv II. amounts in reclaimed water. Thus, boron and phospho
rous can be eliminated from the fertilizer program. Re
The project is designed for average flows of 50 mgd (2,190 claimed water maintains soil pH within the recommended
l/s) and can handle peak flows of 75 mgd (3,285 l/s). range; therefore, lime no longer needs to be applied.
Approximately 60 percent of the daily flows are used for
irrigation, and the remaining ±40 percent is discharged to Citrus growers participating in Water Conserv II benefit
the RIBs for recharge of the Floridan aquifer. Water from using reclaimed water. Citrus produced for fresh
Conserv II began operation on December 1, 1986. fruit or processing can be irrigated by using a direct
contact method. Growers are provided reclaimed water
At first, citrus growers were reluctant to sign up for re 24 hours per day, 7 days per week at pressures suitable
claimed water. They were afraid of potential damage to for micro-sprinkler or impact sprinkler irrigation. At present,
their crops and land from the use of the reclaimed wa local water management districts have issued no restric
ter. The City and County hired Dr. Robert C.J. Koo, a tions for the use of reclaimed water for irrigation of cit
citrus irrigation expert at the University of Florida’s Cit rus. By providing reclaimed water at pressures suitable
rus Research Center at Lake Alfred, to study the use of for irrigation, costs for the installation, operation, and
reclaimed water as an irrigation source for citrus. Dr. Koo maintenance of a pumping system can be eliminated.
concluded that reclaimed water would be an excellent This means a savings of $128.50 per acre per year ($317
source of irrigation water for citrus. The growers were per hectare per year). Citrus growers have also realized
satisfied and comfortable with Dr. Koo’s findings, but increased crop yields of 10 to 30 percent and increased
wanted long-term research done to ensure that there would tree growth of up to 400 percent. The increases are not
be no detrimental effects to the crop or land from the due to the reclaimed water itself, but the availability of
long-term use of reclaimed water. The City and County the water in the soil for the tree to absorb. Growers are
agreed, and the Mid Florida Citrus Foundation (MFCF) maintaining higher soil moisture levels.
was created.
Citrus growers also benefit from enhanced freeze pro
The MFCF is a non-profit organization conducting research tection capabilities. The project is able to supply enough
on citrus and deciduous fruit and nut crops. All research water to each grower to protect his or her entire pro
is conducted by faculty from the University of Florida’s duction area. Freeze flows are more than 8 times higher
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS). The than normal daily flows. It is very costly to the City and
MFCF Board of Directors is comprised of citrus growers County to provide these flows (operating costs average
in north central Florida and representatives from the City $15,000 to $20,000 per night of operation), but they feel
of Orlando, Orange County, the University of Florida IFAS, it is well worth the cost. If growers were to be frozen out,
and various support industries. Goals of the MFCF are the project would lose its customer base. Sources of
to develop management practices that will allow growers water to meet freeze flow demands include normal daily
in the northern citrus area to re-establish citrus and grow flows of 30 to 35 mgd (1,310 to 1,530 l/s), 38 million
63
gallons of stored water (143,850 m3), 80 mgd (3,500 l/s) A plan has been developed to connect the 2 parcels via
from twenty-five 16-inch diameter wells, and, if needed, trails for viewing the tidal marsh, the polishing wetlands,
20 mgd (880 l/s) of potable water from the Orlando Utili and the riparian/creek area. The plan also calls for resto
ties Commission. ration and expansion of the riparian zone, planting of na
tive vegetation, and restoration/enhancement of the tidal
Water Conserv II is a success story. University of Florida marsh. The polishing wetlands will be constructed on a
researchers and extension personnel are delighted with portion of the 133 acres (54 hectares) of uplands. The
research results to date. Citrus growers sing the praises remainder of the upland areas will either be restored for
of reclaimed water irrigation. The Floridan aquifer is habitat or cultivated as a standing crop for butterfly and
being protected and recharged. Area residents view the bird foraging. Landscaping on the wetlands site will be
project as a friendly neighbor and protector of the rural irrigated with reclaimed water. A renowned environmen
country atmosphere. tal artist developed the conceptual plan with an image of
the dog-faced butterfly formed by the wetland cells and
2.7.13 The Creation of a Wetlands Park: trails.
Petaluma, California
Funding for acquisition of the land and construction of
The City of Petaluma, California, has embarked on a the trails and restoration projects has been secured from
project to construct a new water reclamation facility. The the local (Sonoma County) open space district and the
existing wastewater plant was originally built in 1938, California Coastal Conservancy in the amount of $4
and then upgraded over the years to include oxidation million. The citizen’s alliance has continued to promote
ponds for storage during non-discharge periods. The city the concept. The alliance recently hosted a tour of the
currently uses pond effluent to irrigate 800 acres (320 site with the National Audubon Society, asking that the
hectares) of agricultural lands and a golf course. As part site be considered for the location of an Audubon Inter
of the new facility, wetlands are being constructed for pretive Center.
multiple purposes including treatment (to reduce sus
pended solids, metals, and organics), reuse, wildlife habi 2.7.14 Geysers Recharge Project:
tat, and public education and recreation. The citizens of Santa Rosa, California
Petaluma have expressed a strong interest in creating a
facility that not only provides wastewater treatment and The cities of central Sonoma County, California, have
reuse, but also serves as a community asset. In an ef been growing rapidly, while at the same time regula
fort to further this endeavor, the citizens formed an orga tions governing water reuse and discharge have become
nization called the Petaluma Wetlands Park Alliance. more stringent. This has taxed traditional means of re
using water generated at the Laguna Wastewater Plant
Currently, the project is being designed to include 30 acres and Reclamation Facility. Since the early 1960s, the
(12 hectares) of vegetated wetlands to remove algae. Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System has
The wetlands will be located downstream from the City’s provided reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation in the
oxidation ponds. The vegetated treatment wetlands will Santa Rosa Plain, primarily to forage crops for dairy
not be accessible to the general public for security rea farms. In the early 1990s, urban irrigation uses were
sons. However, an additional 30 acres (12 hectares) of added at Sonoma State University, golf courses, and
polishing wetlands with both open water and dense veg local parks. The remaining reclaimed water not used for
etation zones will be constructed on an adjacent parcel irrigation was discharged to the Laguna de Santa Rosa
of land. These polishing wetlands will be fed by disin from October through May. But limited storage capacity,
fected water from the treatment wetlands, so public ac conversion of dairy farms to vineyards (decreasing re
cess will be allowed. Berms around all 3 wetland cells claimed water use by over two-thirds), and growing con
will provide access trails. cerns over water quality impacts in the Laguna de Santa
Rosa, pressured the system to search for a new and
The parcel of land where the polishing wetlands will be reliable means of reuse.
constructed has many interesting and unique features.
An existing creek and riparian zone extend through the In the northwest quadrant of Sonoma County lies the
upland portion of the parcel down to the Petaluma River. Geysers Geothermal Steamfield, a super-heated steam
The parcel was historically farmed all the way to the river, resource used to generate electricity since the mid 1960s.
but in an El Nino event, the river levees breached and At its peak in 1987, the field produced almost 2,000
132 acres (53 hectares) of land has been returned to megawatts (MW), enough electricity to supply an esti
tidal mudflat/marsh. The parcel is directly adjacent to a mated 2 million homes and businesses with power. Gey
city park, with trails surrounding ponds for dredge spoils. sers operators have mined the underground steam to such
64
a degree over the years that electricity production has which traverses much of Sonoma County’s grape-grow-
declined to about 1,200 MW. As a result, the operators ing regions. Recent listings of coho salmon and steel
are seeking a source of water to recharge the deep aqui head trout as threatened species may mean that exist
fers that yield steam. Geothermal energy is priced com ing agricultural diversions of surface waters will have to
petitively with fossil fuel and hydroelectric sources, and be curtailed. The Geysers pipeline could provide an
is an important “green” source of electricity. In 1997, a other source of water to replace surface water sources,
neighboring sewage treatment district in Lake County thereby preserving the habitat of the threatened spe
successfully implemented a project to send 8 mgd (350 cies.
l/s) of secondary-treated water augmented with Clear
Lake water to the southeast Geysers steamfields for re 2.7.15 Advanced Wastewater Reclamation
charge. In 1998, the Santa Rosa Subregional Reclama in California
tion System decided to build a conveyance system to
send 11 mgd (480 l/s) of tertiary-treated water to the north The Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) System is a
west Geysers steamfield for recharge. The Santa Rosa regional water supply project sponsored jointly by the
contribution to the steamfield is expected to yield an Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Orange
additional 85 MW or more of electricity production. County Sanitation District (OCSD) in southern Califor
nia. Planning between OCWD and OCSD eventually led
The conveyance system to deliver water to the steamfield to the decision to replace Water Factory 21 (WF21) with
includes 40 miles (64 km) of pipeline, 4 large pump sta the GWR System. OCSD, an early partner with OCWD in
tions, and a storage tank. The system requires a lift of WF21, will continue to supply secondary wastewater to
3,300 feet (1,005 meters). Distribution facilities within the GWR System. As one of the largest advanced re
the steamfield include another 18 miles (29 km) of pipe claimed water facilities in the world, the GWR System
line, a pump station, and tank, plus conversion of geo will protect the groundwater from further degradation
thermal wells from production wells to injection wells. due to seawater intrusion and supplement existing wa
ter supplies by providing a new, reliable, high-quality
The contract with the primary steamfield operator, Calpine source of water to recharge the Orange County ground
Corporation, states that Calpine is responsible for the water basin. For OCSD, reusing the water will also pro
construction and operation of the steamfield distribution vide peak wastewater flow disposal relief and postpone
system and must provide the power to pump the water to the need to construct a new ocean outfall by diverting
the steamfield. The Subregional Reclamation System, in treated wastewater flows that would otherwise be dis
turn, is responsible for the construction and operation of charged to the Pacific Ocean.
the conveyance system to the steamfield and provides
the reclaimed water at no charge. The term of the con The GWR System addresses both water supply and
tract is for 20 years with an option for either party to wastewater management needs through beneficial reuse
extend for another 10 years. of highly treated wastewater. OCWD is the local agency
responsible for managing and protecting the lower Santa
One of the major benefits of the Geysers Recharge Project Ana River groundwater basin. Water supply needs in
is the flexibility afforded by year-round reuse of water. clude both the quantity and quality of water. The GWR
The system has been severely limited because of sea System offers a new source of water to meet future in
sonal discharge constraints and the fact that agricultural creasing demands from the region’s groundwater produc
reuse is not feasible during the wet winter months. The ers, provides a reliable water supply in times of drought,
Geysers steamfield will use reclaimed water in the win and reduces the area’s dependence on imported water.
ter, when no other reuse options are available. However, The GWR System will take treated secondary wastewa
during summer months, demand for reuse water for irri ter from OCSD (activated sludge and trickling filter efflu
gation is high. The system will continue to serve agricul ent) and purify it using microfiltration (MF), reverse os
tural and urban users while maintaining a steady but re mosis (RO) and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. Lime is added
duced flow of reclaimed water to the Geysers. A detailed to stabilize the water. This low-salinity water (less than
daily water balance model was constructed to assist in 100 mg/l TDS) will be injected into the seawater barrier
the design of the initial system and to manage the opti or percolated through the ground into Orange County’s
mum blend of agricultural, urban, and Geysers recharge aquifers, where it will blend with groundwater from other
uses. sources, including imported and Santa Ana River
stormwater, to improve the water quality. The GWR Sys
In addition to the benefits of power generation, the Gey tem will produce a peak daily production capacity of 78,400
sers Recharge Project will bring an opportunity for agri acre-feet per year (70 mgd or 26,500 m3/yr) in the initial
cultural reuse along the Geysers pipeline alignment, phase and will ultimately produce nearly 145,600 acre
65
feet per year (130 mgd or 492,100 m3/yr) of a new, reli 2.7.16 An Investigation of Soil Aquifer
able, safe drinking water supply, enough to serve over Treatment for Sustainable Water
200,000 families. Over time, the water produced by the
GWR System will lower the salinity of groundwater by An intensive study, entitled, “An Investigation of Soil
replacing the high-TDS water currently percolated into Aquifer Treatment for Sustainable Water Reuse,” was
the groundwater basin with low-TDS reclaimed water from conducted to assess the sustainability of several differ
the GWR System. The project conforms to the California ent SAT systems with different site characteristics and
State Constitution by acknowledging the value of re effluent pretreatments (AWWARF, 2001). The sites se
claimed water. Less energy is used to produce the GWR lected for study and key characteristics of the sites are
System water than would be required to import an equiva presented in Table 2-15.
lent volume of water, reducing overall electrical power
demand in the region. Main objectives of the study were to: (1) examine the
sustainability of SAT systems leading to indirect potable
The GWR System will also expand the existing seawater reuse of reclaimed water; (2) characterize the processes
intrusion barrier to protect the Orange County groundwa that contribute to removal of organics, nitrogen, and vi
ter basin from further degradation. The groundwater lev ruses during transport through the infiltration interface,
els have been lowered significantly in some areas of the soil percolation zone, and underlying groundwater aqui
groundwater basin due to the substantial coastal pump fer; and (3) develop relationships among above-ground
ing required to meet peak summer potable water de treatment and SAT for use by regulators and utilities.
mands. The objective of the barrier is to create a continu
ous mound of freshwater that is higher than sea level, so The study reported the following results:
that the seawater cannot migrate into the aquifer. As
groundwater pumping activities increase, so do the Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) present in SAT prod
amounts of freshwater required to maintain the protec uct water was composed of natural organic matter
tive mound. OCWD currently operates 26 injection wells (NOM), soluble microbial products that resemble
to supply water to the barrier first created in the mid NOM, and trace organics.
1970s. Additional water is required to maintain a suitable
barrier. To determine optimal injection well capacities and Characterization of the DOC in SAT product water
locations, a Talbert Gap groundwater computer model determined that the majority of organics present were
was constructed and calibrated for use as a predictive not of anthropenic origin.
tool. Based on the modeling analysis, 4 new barrier wells
will be constructed in an alignment along the Santa Ana The frequency of pathogen detection in SAT prod
River to cut off saltwater intrusion at the east end of the ucts waters could not be distinguished from the fre
Talbert Gap. The modeling results also indicate that a quency of pathogen detection in other groundwaters.
western extension of the existing barrier is required.
Twelve new barrier wells will be constructed at the west Nitrogen removal during SAT was sustained by
ern end of the Talbert Gap to inhibit saltwater intrusion anaerobic ammonia oxidation.
under the Huntington Beach mesa.
The study reported the following impacts:
The project benefits OCSD’s wastewater management
effort as well as helping to meet Orange County’s water Effluent pretreatment did not affect final SAT prod
supply requirements. The GWR System conforms to the uct water with respect to organic carbon concentra
OCSD Charter, which supports water reuse as a scarce tions. A watershed approach may be used to predict
natural resource. By diverting peak wastewater effluent SAT product water quality.
discharges, the need to construct a new ocean outfall is
deferred, saving OCSD over $175 million in potential Removal of organics occurred under saturated an
construction costs. These savings will be used to help oxic conditions and a vadose zone was not neces
off-set the cost of the GWR system where OCSD will sary for an SAT system. If nitrogen removal is de
pay for half of the Phase 1 construction. The GWR Sys sired during SAT, nitrogen must be applied in a re
tem also reduces the frequency of emergency discharges duced form, and a vadose zone combined with soils
near the shore, which are a significant environmental is that can exchange ammonium ions is required.
sue with the local beach communities.
66
Table 2-15. Field Sites for Wetlands/SAT Research
Facility Key Site Characteristics
Sweetwater Wetlands/Recharge Deep vadose zone (>100 feet) with extensive vadose zone monitoring
Facility, AZ capabilities and several shallow groundwater wells located downgradient.
Shallow vadose zone (5-20 feet). Multi-depth sampling capabilities below

Mesa Northwest, AZ basins. Array of shallow groundwater wells located from 500 feet to greater
than 10,000 feet from recharge site.
Horizontal flow and shallow (<21 feet) saturated zone sampling capabilities.
Phoenix Tres Rios Cobble Site, AZ
Majority of flow infiltrates into groundwater.
Vadose zone (20-50 feet). Water supply is a mixture of reclaimed water and
Rio Hondo/Montebello Forebay, CA
other available water sources. Multi-depth sampling capabilities.
Shallow vadose zone (10-20 feet). Water supply is a mixture of reclaimed

San Gabriel/Montebello Forebay, CA
water and other available water sources. Multi-depth sampling capabilities.
Riverside Water Quality Control Plant Hidden Horizontal flow and shallow (<3 feet) vadose zone sampling capabilities.
Valley Wetlands, CA Approximately 25% of flow infiltrates into groundwater.
Deep vadose zone (>100 feet). Multi-depth and downgradient sampling
East Valley (Hansen Spreading Grounds), CA
capabilities exist.
Avra Valley Wastewater Treatment Wastewater treatment applied is similar to facilities in Mesa and Phoenix,
Facility, AZ Arizona. However, drinking water supply is based only on local groundwater.
The distribution of disinfection by-products produced The City of West Palm Beach has developed a program
during chlorination of SAT product water was affected to use highly treated wastewater from their East Central
by elevated bromide concentrations in reclaimed wa Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (ECRWWTP) for
ter. beneficial reuse including augmentation of their drinking
water supply. Presently, all of the wastewater effluent
2.7.17 The City of West Palm Beach, Florida from the ECRWWTP (approximately 35 mgd [1,530 l/s]
Wetlands-Based Water Reclamation average daily flow) is injected over 3,000 feet (914
Project meters) into the groundwater (boulder zone) using 6 deep
wells. Rather than continuing to dispose of the wastewa
The City of West Palm Beach water supply system con ter effluent, the City of West Palm Beach developed the
sists of a 20-square-mile (52-km2) water catchment area Wetlands-Based Water Reclamation Project (WBWRP).
and surface water allocation from Lake Okeechobee, The project flow path is shown in Figure 2-17.
which flows to a canal network that eventually terminates
at Clear Lake, where the City’s water treatment plant is To protect and preserve its surface water supply system
located. As part of the Everglades restoration program, and to develop this reuse system to augment the water
the timing, location, and quantity of water releases to the supply, the City purchased a 1,500-acre (607-hectare)
South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) ca wetland reuse site. This site consists of a combination
nals from Lake Okechobee will be modified. More water of wetlands and uplands. A portion of this property was
will be directed towards the Everglades for hydropattern used for the construction of a standby wellfield. The
restoration and less water will be sent to the SFWMD standby wellfield site covers an area of 323 acres (131
canals. This translates into less water available for wa hectares) and consists of wetlands and uplands domi
ter supplies in the lower east coast area. Therefore, indi nated by Melaleuca trees. Two important goals of the
rect potable reuse, reuse for aquifer recharge purposes, project were to: (1) develop an advanced wastewater treat
and aquifer storage and recovery are some of the alter ment facility at the ECRWWTP that could produce re
native water supply strategies planned by the City of West claimed water that, when discharged, would be compat
Palm Beach. ible with the hydrology and water quality at the wetland
67
reuse site, and (2) produce a reliable water supply to biochemical oxygen demand (CBOD5), TN, and TP goals
augment the City’s surface water supply. Treatment was of 5, 5, 3, and 1 mg/l, respectively, and that wetlands
to be provided by the reclaimed water production facility, could provide some additional treatment prior to discharge.
wetlands, and through aquifer recharge. Groundwater with The demonstration facility met the AWT goals as well as
drawal would meet drinking water and public health stan all of the surface water quality standards, state and fed
dards. Monitoring was performed at the wetland reuse eral drinking water standards (except for iron), and all
site from July 1996 to August 1997. The purpose of this public health standards (absence of Cryptosporidum, Gia-
monitoring was to establish baseline conditions in the rdia, enteric viruses, and coliforms).
wetlands prior to reclaimed water application and to de
termine the appropriate quality of the reclaimed water A hydrologic model capable of simulating both ground
that will be applied to the wetland reuse site. In addition water flow and overland flow was constructed and cali
to the monitoring of background hydrology, groundwater brated to assess the hydrology, hydrogeology, and po
quality, and surface water quality, the baseline-monitor- tential hydraulic conveyance characteristics within the
ing program investigated sediment quality, vegetation, project area. The model indicated that maintenance of
fish, and the presence of listed threatened and endan viable wetlands (i.e., no extended wet or dry periods)
gered plant and animal species. Groundwater samples can be achieved at the wetland reuse site, the standby
from the wetland reuse site and the standby wellfield met wellfield, and with aquifer recharge to augment the wa
the requirements for drinking water except for iron. Iron ter supply.
was detected in excess of the secondary drinking water
standards of 0.3 mg/l at all of the wells, but not in ex Reclaimed water will initially be applied to the wetland
cess of the Class III surface water quality criteria of 1.0 reuse site at a rate of 2 inches (5 cm) per week, which
mg/l. Total nitrogen (TN) concentrations in the wetlands corresponds to a reclaimed water flow of approximately
ranged from 0.67 mg/l to 3.85 mg/l with an average value 6 mgd (263 l/s) over 770 acres (312 hectares) of the
of 1.36 mg/l. The concentration of total phosphorus (TP) 1,415-acre (573-hectare) site. The results of the model
was low throughout the wetlands, ranging from less than ing indicate that up to 6 mgd (263 l/s) of reclaimed water
0.01 to 0.13 mg/l, with an average value of 0.027 mg/l. can be applied to the wetland reuse site without produc
ing more than an 8-inch (20-cm) average rise in surface
In 1995, the City of West Palm Beach constructed a water levels in the wetlands. A particle tracking analysis
150,000-gpd (6.6-l/s) AWT constructed wetlands demon was conducted to evaluate the fate of discharge at the
stration project. The goals of this project were to demon wetland reuse site and the associated time of travel in
strate that an AWT facility could produce an effluent qual the surficial aquifer. The particle tracking analysis indi
ity of total suspended solids (TSS), 5-day carbonaceous cated that the travel time from the point of reclaimed
Figure 2-17. Project Flow Path
68
water application to the point of groundwater discharge Figure 2-18. Growth of Reuse in Florida
(from the standby wellfield to the M Canal) ranged from 2
to 34 years. The M Canal flows into the City’s surface
water reservoir.
Based on the results of the demonstration project, a 10

mgd (438-l/s) reclaimed water facility was designed with
operational goals for TN and TP of less than 2.0 mg/l
and 0.05 mg/l (on an annual average basis) respectively,
in order to minimize change in the wetland vegetation. A
commitment to construction and operation of a high-quality
reclaimed water facility has been provided to meet these
stringent discharge requirements.
Source: Florida DEP, 2002b
Public participation for this project consisted of holding
several tours and meetings with regulatory agencies,
includes discussion of landscape irrigation, agricultural
public health officials, environmental groups, media, and
irrigation, industrial uses, groundwater recharge, indirect
local residents from the early planning phases through
potable reuse, and a wide range of urban reuse activi
project design. Brochures describing the project driv
ties. This rule also addresses reclaimed water ASR, blend
ers, proposed processes, safety measures, and ben
ing of demineralization concentrate with reclaimed wa
efits to the community were identified. A public relations
ter, and the use of supplemental water supplies.
firm was also hired to help promote the project to elected
officials and state and federal policy makers.
Given the complexity of the program and the number of
entities involved, program coordination is critical. The
2.7.18 Types of Reuse Applications in
Reuse Coordinating Committee, which consists of repre
Florida
sentatives of the Florida DEP, Florida’s 5 water manage
ment districts, Florida Department of Health, the Public
Florida receives an average of more than 50 inches (127
Service Commission, Florida Department of Agriculture
cm) of rainfall each year. While the state may appear to
and Consumer Services and Florida Department of Com
have an abundance of water, continuing population
munity Affairs, meets regularly to discuss reuse activi
growth, primarily in the coastal areas, contributes to in
ties and issues. In addition, permitting staffs from the
creased concerns about water availability. The result is
water management districts and the Florida DEP meet
increased emphasis on water conservation and reuse as
regularly to discuss local reuse issues and to bring po
a means to more effectively manage state water re
tential reclaimed water users and suppliers together. In
sources (FDEP, 2002a).
deed, statutory and rule provisions mandate the use of
reclaimed water and implementation of reuse programs
By state statute, Florida established the encouragement
(York et al., 2002).
and promotion of water reuse as formal state objectives
(York et al., 2002). In response, the Florida Department
Florida’s Water Reuse Program incorporates a number
of Environmental Protection (FDEP), along with the
of innovations and advancements. Of note is the “State-
state’s water management districts and other state agen
ment of Support for Water Reuse”, which was signed by
cies, have implemented comprehensive programs de
the heads of the agencies comprising the Reuse Coordi
signed to achieve these objectives.
nating Committee. EPA Region 4 also participated as a
signatory party. The participating agencies committed to
As shown in Figure 2-18, the growth of reuse in Florida
encouraging, promoting, and facilitating water reuse in
during 1986 to 2001 has been remarkable (FDEP, 2002b).
Florida.
In 2001, reuse capacity totaled 1,151 mgd (50,400 l/s),
which represented about 52 percent of the total permit
In addition, working as a partner with the Water Reuse
ted capacity of all domestic wastewater treatment facili
Committee of the Florida Water Environment Associa
ties in the state. About 584 mgd (25,580 l/s) of reclaimed
tion, Florida DEP developed the “Code of Good Prac-
water were used for beneficial purposes in 2001.
tices for Water Reuse.” This is a summary of key man
agement, operation, and public involvement concepts that
The centerpiece of Florida’s Water Reuse Program is a
define quality reuse programs.
detailed set of rules governing water reuse. Chapter 62
610, Florida Administrative Code (Florida DEP, 1999),
69
As outlined in the Water Conservation Initiative (FDEP, the SWFWMD and has experienced prolonged growth
2002a), the future of Florida’s Water Reuse Program will that has strained potable water supplies. A profile of the
be guided by the need to ensure that reclaimed water is Tampa Bay area is given below:
used efficiently and effectively in Florida (York et al.,
2002). The Water Conservation Initiative report contains Home to nearly 2.5 million people who live in the 3
15 strategies for encouraging efficiency and effective counties (Pasco, Hillsborough, and Pinellas) referred
ness in the Water Reuse Program. to as the Tampa Bay area.
2.7.19 Regionalizing Reclaimed Water in The largest water user group in the Tampa Bay area
the Tampa Bay Area is the public, using 306.2 million mgd (13,410 l/s),
representing 64 percent of the water total use in the
The Southwest Florida Water Management District area in the year 2000. There are 38 wastewater treat
(SWFMWD) is one of 5 water management districts in ment facilities in the Tampa Bay area operated by
the state responsible for permitting groundwater and sur 19 public and private utilities. In 2000 these facili
face water withdrawals. The Tampa Bay area is within ties:
Figure 2-19. Available Reclaimed Water in Pasco, Pinellas, and Hillsborough Counties
70
- Produced an annual average of 201 mgd (8,800 2.8 References
l/s) of treated wastewater.
When a National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
- 73 mgd (3,200 l/s) of reclaimed water was used number is cited in a reference, that reference is available
for beneficial purposes, representing 36 percent from:
use of available flows.
National Technical Information Service
- Of the 73 mgd (3,200 l/s), 44 mgd (1,930 l/s) (60 5285 Port Royal Road
percent) of reclaimed water replaced the use of Springfield, VA 22161
traditional, high-quality (potable) water resources. (703) 487-4650
As the regulatory authority responsible for managing Adamski, R., S. Gyory, A. Richardson, and J. Crook.
water supplies in the region, SWFWMD views the offset 2000. “The Big Apple Takes a Bite Out of Water Reuse.”
achieved through use of reclaimed water as an important 2000 Water Reuse Conference Proceedings, January 30
contribution to the regional water supply. The District’s – February 2, 2000. San Antonio, Texas.
“Regional Water Supply Plan” includes a goal to effec
tively use 75 percent of available reclaimed water re American Water Works Association, California-Nevada
sources in order to offset existing or new uses of high Section. 1997. Guidelines for the Onsite Retrofit of Fa-
quality water sources. The objectives to meet the goal cilities Using Disinfected Tertiary Recycled Water.
by 2020 or earlier are collectively designed to enhance
the use and efficiency of reclaimed water by: American Water Works Association Research Founda
tion (AWWARF); KIWA. 1988. “The Search for a Surro
Maximizing reclaimed water locally to meet water gate,” American Water Works Association Research
demands in service areas Foundation, Denver, Colorado.
Increasing the efficiency of use through technology American Water Works Association Research Founda
for dealing with wet-weather flows and demand man tion (AWWARF). 2001. “An Investigation of Soil Aquifer
agement (i.e., meters, education, etc.) Treatment for Sustainable Water Reuse.” Order Num
ber 90855.
Interconnecting systems to move excess flows to
areas where the water is needed, when it is needed, Babcock, R., C. Ray, and T. Huang. 2002. “Fate of Phar
for a regional water resource benefit maceuticals in Soil Following Irrigation with Recycled
Water.” WEFTEC 2002 Proceedings of the 75th Annual
There is not enough reclaimed water in the Tampa Bay Conference and Exposition, McCormick Place, Chicago,
area to meet all of the irrigation and other needs in the Illinois.
region. However, there are opportunities to transport ex
cess reclaimed water flows that cannot be used locally Bouwer, H. 1991. “Role of Groundwater Recharge in Treat
to achieve benefits to areas of high demand or other ben ment and Storage of Wastewater for Reuse.” Water Sci-
eficial uses, such as natural system restoration. As a ence Technology, 24:295-302.
first step in evaluating how reclaimed water may be used
in the Tampa Bay Area, the SWFWMD developed an Bouwer, H. 1991. “Simple Derivation of the Retardation
inventory of existing water reclamation facilities, their Equation and Application to Referential Flow and
locations, total flow and flows already committed to ben Macrodispersion.” Groundwater, 29(1): 41-46.
eficial reuse, and flows that might be available for an
expanded reuse program (Figure 2-19). Subsequent plan Bouwer, H. 1988. “Systems for Artificial Recharge for
ning efforts will build on this information to evaluate in Groundwater.” Proceedings of the International Sympo
terconnections between reuse systems for optimal use. sium. Annaheim, California. American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Bouwer, H., and R.C. Rice. 1989. “Effect of Water Depth

in Groundwater Recharge Basins on Infiltration Rate.”
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 115:556-
568.
71
Calabrese, E.J., C.E. Gilbert, and H. Pastides. 1989. ministrator, and Jon Yanasek, Operator-in-Charge. Yelm,
Safe Drinking Water Act, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Washington.
Michigan.
Cronk, J.K., and M.S. Fennessy. 2001. “Wetland Plants:
California State Water Resources Control Board. 2002. Biology and Ecology.” Lewis Publishers.
2002 Statewide Recycled Water Survey.California State
Water Resources Control Board, Office of Water Recy Crook, J. 1990. “Water Reclamation.” Encyclopedia of
cling, Sacramento, California. Available from Physical Science and Technology. R. Myers (ed.), Aca
www.swrcb.ca.gov/recycling/recyfund/munirec/ demic Press, Inc., pp. 157-187. San Diego, California.
index.html.
Crook, J., T. Asano, and M.H. Nellor. 1990. “Ground
California State Water Resources Control Board. 1990. water Recharge with Reclaimed Water in California.”
California Municipal Wastewater Reclamation in 1987. Water Environment and Technology, 2 (8), 42-49.
California State Water Resources Control Board, Office
of Water Recycling, Sacramento, California. Cuyk, S.V., R. Siegrist, A. Logan, S. Massen, E. Fischer,
and L. Figueroa. 1999. “Purification of Wastewater in Soil
California State Water Resources Control Board. 1980. Treatment Systems as Affected by Infiltrative Surface
Evaluation of Industrial Cooling Systems Using Reclaimed Character and Unsaturated Soil Depth.” Water Environ
Municipal Wastewater. California State Water Resources ment Federation, WEFTEC99, Conference Proceedings.
Control Board, Office of Water Recycling, Sacramento,
California. Daughton, C.G., and T.A. Temes. 1999. “Pharmaceuti
cals and Personal Care Products in the Environment:
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 2001. City of Orlando, Phase Agents of Subtle Change?” Environmental Health Per-
I Eastern Regional Reclaimed Water Distribution Sys- spectives, 107, supplement. December, 1999.
tem. Prepared for the City of Orlando, Florida, by Camp
Dresser & McKee Inc., Maitland, Florida. DeStefano, Eugene, C. 2000. “Panda Perkiomen Power
Plant Supply Water Quality Comparisons.” Memoran
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 1990a. City of Boca Raton, dum dated September 13, 2000.
Florida Reclaimed Water System Master Plan. Prepared
for the City of Boca Raton, Florida, by Camp Dresser & Dorica, J., P. Ramamurthy, and A. Elliott. 1998. “Reuse
McKee Inc., Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. of Biologically Treated Effluents in Pulp and Paper Op
erations” Report MR 372. Pulp and Paper Institute of
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 1990b. Effluent Reuse Fea- Canada.
sibility Study and Master Plan for Urban Reuse. Pre
pared for the Manatee County Public Works Department Drewes J., M. Reinhardt and P. Fox. 2003. “Comparing
and the Southwest Florida Water Management District Microfiltration/Reverse Osmosis and Soil Aquifer Treat
by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., Sarasota, Florida. ment for Indirect Potable Reuse of Water”, Water Re
search, 37, 3612-3621.
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. 1987. City of St. Peters-
burg Reclaimed Water System Master Plan Update. Drewes, J.E., P. Fox, and M Jekel. 2001. “Occurrence
Prepared for the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, by Camp of Iodinated X-Ray Contrast Media in Domestic Efflu
Dresser & McKee Inc., Clearwater, Florida. ents and Their Fate During Indirect Potable Reuse”, Jour
nal of Environmental Science and Health, A36, 1633
Carlson, R.R., K.D. Lindstedt, E.R. Bennett, and R.B. 1646.
Hartman. 1982. “Rapid Infiltration Treatment of Primary
and Secondary Effluents.” Journal WPCF, 54: 270-280. Engineering Science. 1987. “Monterey Wastewater Rec
lamation Study for Agriculture.” Prepared for Monterey
Chalmers, R.B., M. Patel, W. Sevenandt and D. Cutler. Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, Monterey, Cali
2003. Meeting the Challenge of Providing a Reliable Water fornia.
Supply for the Future, the Groundwater Replenishment
System. WEFTEC 2003. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002a.
Florida Water Conservation Initiative. Florida Department
City of Yelm. 2003. 2003 Ground Water Monitoring and of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida.
Use Information. Provided by Shelly Badger, City Ad
72
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002b. National Water Supply Improvement Association. Vol. 2.
2001 Reuse Inventory. Florida Department of Environ August 19-23, 1990. Buena Vista, Florida.
mental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida.
Gordon, C., K. Wall, S. Toze, and G. O’Hara. 2002. “In
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999. fluence of Conditions on the Survival of Enteric Viruses
“Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application.” and Indicator Organisms in Groundwater” Management
Chapter 62-610, Florida Administrative Code. Florida of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: A. A. Balkema
Department of Environmental Protection. Tallahassee, Publishers. Lisse, p. 133-138.
Florida.
Grisham, A., and W.M. Fleming. 1989. “Long-Term Op
Fox, P. 2002. “Soil Aquifer Treatment: An Assessment tions for Municipal Water Conservation.” Journal AWWA,
of Sustainability.” Management of Aquifer Recharge for 81: 34-42.
Sustainability. A.A. Balkema Publishers.
Haynes, D. C., “Water Recycling in the Pulp and Paper
Fox, P. 1999. “Advantages of Aquifer Recharge for a Sus Industry.” TAPPI. Vol 57. No. 4. April, 1974.
tainable Water Supply” United Nations Environmental
Programme/International Environmental Technology Cen Hirsekorn, R.A., and R.A. Ellison. 1987. “Sea Pines Public
tre International Symposium on Efficient Water Use in Service District Implements a Comprehensive Reclaimed
Urban Areas, Kobe, Japan, June 8-10, pp. 163-172. Water System.” Water Reuse Symposium IV Proceed-
ings. August 2-7, 1987. Denver, Colorado.
Fox, P., Naranaswamy, K. and J.E. Drewes. 2001. “Wa
ter Quality Transformations during Soil Aquifer Treat Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff. 1986a. Design
ment at the Mesa Northwest Water Reclamation Plant, Report: Dual-Distribution System (Reclaimed Water sup-
USA,”, Water Science and Technology, 43, 10, 343-350. ply, Storage and Transmission System), Project APRI-
COT. Prepared for the City of Altamonte Springs, Florida,
Fox, P. 2002. “Soil Aquifer Treatment: An Assessment by Howard Needles Tammen & Bergendoff. Orlando,
of Sustainability.” Management of Aquifer Recharge for Florida.
Sustainability: A. A. Balkema Publishers. Lisse, 9.21-
26. Irvine Ranch Water District. 1991. Water Resource Mas-
ter Plan. Irvine, California.
Fox, P., J. Gable. 2003. “Sustainable Nitrogen Removal
by Anaerobic Ammonia Oxidation During Soil Aquifer Irvine Ranch Water District. 1990. Engineer’s Report: Use
Treatment.” Water Environment Federation, 2003 of Reclaimed Water for Flushing Toilets and Urinals, and
WEFTEC Conference Proceedings:, Los Angeles, Cali Floor Drain Trap Priming in the Restroom Facilities at
fornia. Jamboree Tower. Irvine, California.
Gagliardo, P., B. Pearce, G. Lehman, and S. Adham. Irvine Ranch Water District. 2003. Water Reclamation
2002. “Use of Reclaimed Water for Industrial Applica website www.IRWD.com.
tions.” 2002 WateReuse Symposium. September 8 –
11. Orlando, Florida International Water Association (IWA). 2000. “Constructed
Wetlands for Pollution Control: Process, Performance,
Gearheart, R. A. 1988. “Arcata’s Innovative Treatment Design and Operation.” Specialist Group on Use of Mac
Alternative.” Proceedings of a Conference on Wetlands rophytes in Water Pollution Control. IWA Publishing.
for Wastewater Treatment and Resource Enhancement.
August 2-4, 1988. Humboldt State University. Arcata, Jackson, J. 1989. “Man-made Wetlands for Wastewater
California. Treatment: Two Case Studies.” D.A. Hammer Ed. Con-
structed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment. Municipal
Gerba, C.P., and S.M. Goyal. 1985. “Pathogen Removal Industrial and Agricultural. Lewis Publishers. P 574-580.
from Wastewater During Groundwater Recharge.” Arti-
ficial Recharge of Groundwater. T. Asano (ed.), pp. 283 Jaques, R.S. 1997. “Twenty Years in the Making – Now a
317. Butterworth Publishers. Boston, Massachusetts. Reality, Nations Largest Project to Provide Recycled
Water for Irrigation of Vegetable Crops Begins Opera
Godlewski, V.J., Jr., B. Reneau, and R. Elmquist. 1990. tions.” Proceedings for the Water Environment Federa-
“Apopka, Florida: A Growing City Implements Benefi tion, 70th Annual Conference and Exposition, October
cial Reuse.” 1990 Biennial Conference Proceedings. 18-122, 1997. Chicago, Illinois.
73
Johns, F.L., R. J. Neal, and R. P. Arber Associates, Inc. 2000. WateReuse Conference Proceedings, January 30
1987. “Maximizing Water Resources in Aurora, Colo – February 2, 2003. San Antonio, Texas.
rado Through Reuse.” Water Reuse Symposium IV Pro-
ceedings. August 2-7, 1987. Denver, Colorado. Lundt, M. M., A. Clapham, B.W. Hounan, and R.E. Fin
ger. 1996. “Cooling with Wastewater.” Water Reuse
Johnson, L.J., and J. Crook, 1998, “Using Reclaimed Conference Proceedings. American Water Works As
Water in Building for Fire Suppressions.” Proceedings sociation, Denver, Colorado.
of the Water Environment Federation 71st Annual Con-
ference and Exposition. Orlando, Florida. McNeal, M.B. 2002. “Aquifer Storage Recovery has a
Significant Role in Florida’s Reuse Future.” 2002
Johnson, W.D. 1998. “Innovative Augmentation of a WateReuse Symposium, September 8 – 11. Orlando,
Community’s Water Supply – The St. Petersburg, Florida Florida.
Experience.” Proceedings of the Water Environment Fed-
eration, 71st Annual Conference and Exposition. October Medema, G. J., and P. J. Stuyzand. 2002. “Removal of
3-7, 1998. Orlando, Florida. Micro-organisms upon Recharge, Deep Well Injection and
River Bank Infiltration in the Netherlands.” Management
Joint Task Force. 1998. Using Reclaimed Water to Aug- of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: A. A. Belkema
ment Potable Water Supplies. Special publication pre Publishers. Lisse, p. 125-131.
pared by a joint task force of the Water Environment
Federation and the American Water Works Association. Mills, W. R. 2002. “The Quest for Water Through Artifi
Published by the Water Environment Federation. Alex cial Recharge and Wastewater Recycling.” Management
andria, Virginia. of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: A. A. Balkema
Publishers, p. 3-10.
Kadlec, R.H., and R.L. Knight. 1996. “Treatment Wet
lands.” Lewis Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Miyamoto, S., and J. White. 2002. “Foliar Salt Damage
of Landscape Plants Induced by Sprinkler Irrigation.”
Khan, S. J., and E. Rorije. 2002. “Pharmaceutically ac Texas Water Resources Inst. TR 1202.
tive compounds in aquifer storage and recovery.” Man-
agement of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability. A. A. Miyamoto, S. 2003. “Managing Salt Problems in Land
Belkema Publishers. Lisse, P. 169-179. scape Use of Reclaimed Water in the Southwest.” Pro-
ceedings of the Reuse Symposium. 2003. San Diego,
Kopchynski, T., Fox, P., Alsmadi, B. and M. Berner. California.
1996. “The Effects of Soil Type and Effluent Pre-Treat-
ment on Soil Aquifer Treatment”, Wat. Sci. Tech., 34:11, National Research Council. 1998. Issues in Potable Re-
pp. 235-242. use. National Academy Press. Washington, D.C.
Lance, J.C., R.C. Rice, and R.G. Gilbert. 1980. “Reno National Research Council. 1980. Drinking Water and
vation of Sewage Water by Soil Columns Flooded with Health, Vol. 2. pp. 252-253. National Academy Press.
Primary Effluent.” Journal WPCF, 52(2): 381-388. Washington, D.C.
Lauer, W.C. 1991. “Denver’s Direct Potable Water Re NCASI. 2003. Memo report from Jay Unwin. April 23,
use Demonstration Project.” Proceedings of the Interna- 2003.
tional Desalination Association. Conference on Desali
nation and Water Reuse. Topsfield, Massachusetts. Nellor, M.H., R.B. Baird, and J.R. Smyth. 1985. “Health
Effects of Indirect Potable Reuse.” Journal AWWA.
Lindsey, P., R., K. Waters, G. Fell, and A. Setka 77(7): 88-96.
Harivandi. 1996. “The Design and Construction of a Dem-
onstration/Research Garden Comparing the Impact of Oaksford, E.T. 1985. Artificial Recharge: Methods, Hy
Recycled vs. Potable Irrigation Water on Landscape draulics, and Monitoring. In: Artificial Recharge of
Plants, Soils and Irrigation Components.” Water Reuse Groundwater. T. Asano (ed) pp 69-127, Butterworth
Conference Proceedings. American Water Works Asso Publishers, Boston Massachusetts.
ciation. Denver, Colorado.
Olsthoorn, T. N., and M. J. M. Mosch. 2002. “Fifty years
Longoria, R.R., D.W. Sloan, and S.M. Jenkins. 2000. Artificial in the Amsterdam Dune Area, In. Management
“Rate Setting for Industrial Reuse in San Marcos, Texas.”
74
of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability.” A. A. Balkema Richardson, T.G. 1998. “Reclaimed Water for Residen
Publishers, Lisse, p. 29-33. tial Toilet Flushing: Are We Ready?” Water Reuse Con-
ference Proceedings, American Water Works Associa
Ornelas, D., and D. Brosman. 2002. “Distribution Sys tion, Denver, Colorado.
tem Startup Challenges for El Paso Water Utilities.” 2002
Reuse Symposium. Orlando, Florida. Rowe, D.R. and I.M. Abdel-Magid. 1995. Handbook of
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. CRC Press, Inc.
Ornelas, D., and S. Miyamoto. 2003. “Sprinkler Conver 550 p.
sion for Minimizing Foliar Salt Damage.” Proceedings of
the WateReuse Symposium. 2003. San Antonio, Texas. SAWS website. 2004. www.saws.org.
Overman, A.R., and W.G. Leseman. 1982. “Soil and Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. 2002. 2001-
Groundwater Changes under Land Treatment of Waste 2002 Annual Groundwater Recharge Monitoring Report.
water.” Transactions of the ASAE. 25(2): 381-87. Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. Whittier,
California.
Payne, J.F., A. R. Overman, M. N. Allhands, and W. G.
Leseman. 1989. “Operational Characteristics of a Waste Sedlak, D.L., J.L. Gray, and K.E. Pinkston. 2000. “Un
water Irrigation System.” Applied Engineering in Agricul- derstanding Microcontaminants in Recycled Water,” Env.
ture, Vol. 5(3): 355-60. Sci. Tech. News. 34 (23).
PBS&J. 1992. Lakeside Lake Load Analysis Study Pre Skjemstad, J. O., M. H. B. Hayes, and R. S. Swift. 2002.
pared for Arizona Department of Environmental Quality “Changes in Natural Organic Matter During Aquifer Stor
age. Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability:
Peyton, D. 2002. “Modified Recharge Basin Floors to A. A. Balkema Publishers. Lisse, p. 149-154.
Control Sediment and Maximize Infiltration Efficiency.
Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: A. Sloss, E., D. F. McCaffrey, R. D. Fricker, S. A.
A. Balkema Publishers. Lisse, p. 215-220. Geschwind, and B.R. Ritz. 1999. “Groundwater Recharge
with Reclaimed Water Birth Outcomes in Los Angeles
Piet, G.J. and B.C.J. Zoeteman. 1980. Organic Water County, 1982-1993.” RAND Corporation. Santa Monica,
Quality Changes During Sand Bank and Dune Filtration California.
of Surface Waters in the Netherlands. Journal AWWA,
72(7) 400-414. Sloss, E, S. A. Geschwind, D. F. McCaffrey, and B. R.
Ritz. 1996. “Groundwater Recharge with Reclaimed Wa
Public Health Service. 1962. Drinking Water Standards. ter: An Epidemiologic Assessment in Los Angeles
Publication No. 956, Washington, D.C. County, 1987-1991.” RAND Corporation. Santa Monica,
California.
Pyne, R.D.G. 2002. “Groundwater Recharge and Wells:
A Guide to Aquifer Storage Recovery.” Lewis Publish Sontheimer, H. 1980. “Experience with Riverbank Filtra
ers, Boca Raton, Florida, p. 376. tion Along the Rhine River.” Journal AWWA , 72(7): 386
390.
Pyne. 1995. Groundwater Recharge and Wells: A Guide
to Aquifer Storage and Recovery. CRC. Boca Raton. Snyder, J. K., A. K. Deb, F. M. Grablutz, and S. B.
McCammon. 2002. “Impacts of Fire Flow and Distribu
Raines, H.K., B. Geyer, M. Bannister, C. Weeks, and T. tion System Water Quality, Design, and Operation.”
Richardson. 2002. “Food Crop Irrigation with Recycled AWWA Research Foundation. Denver, Colorado.
Water is Alive and Well in California.” 2002 WateReuse
Symposium, September 8 –11. Orlando, Florida. Solley, Wayne B., R. R. Pierce, H. and A. Perlman. 1998.
“U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1200: Estimated Use
Reed, S. and R. Bastian. 1991. “Potable Water Via Land of Water in the United States in 1995.” Denver, Colo
Treatment and AWT.” Water Environment & Technol- rado.
ogy. 3(8): 40-47.
Southwest Florida Water Management District. 2002.
Rice, R.C., and H. Bouwer. 1980. “Soil-Aquifer Treatment “Tampa Bay Area Regional Reclaimed Water Initiative.”
Using Primary Effluent.” Journal WPCF. 51(1): 84-88.
75
Southwest Florida Water Management District, U.S. EPA. 1989. Transport and Fate of Contaminants in
Brooksville, Florida. the Subsurface. EPA/625/4-89/019. EPA Center for En
vironmental Research Information. Cincinnati, Ohio.
State of California. 1987. Report of the Scientific Advi-
sory Panel on Groundwater Recharge with Reclaimed U.S. EPA. 1976. National Interim Primary Drinking Wa-
Wastewater. Prepared for State Water Resources Con ter Regulations. U.S. EPA-570/9-76-003. Washington,
trol Board, Department of Water Resources, and De D.C.
partment of Health Services. Sacramento, California.
Vickers, A. 2001. Handbook for Water Reuse and Con-
Stuyzand, P. J. 2002. “Quantifying the Hydrochemical servation. Waterplow Press. Amherst, Mass.
Impact and Sustainability of Artificial Recharge Systems.
Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability: A. Washington State Department of Ecology. 2003. Facil-
A. Balkema Publishers. Lisse, p. 77-82. ity Information. Provided by Glenn Pieritz, Regional
Engineer and Kathy Cupps, Water Reuse Lead. Olym
Tanji, K.K. (ed.) 1990. Agricultural Salinity Assessment pia, Washington.
and Management. American Society of Civil Engineers.
New York, New York. WEF (Water Environment Federation). 2001. Manual
of Practice FD-16 Second Edition. Natural Systems for
Thomas, M., G. Pihera, and B. Inham. 2002. “Con Wastewater Treatment. Chapter 9: Wetland Systems.
structed Wetlands and Indirect Potable Reuse in Clayton Alexandria, Virginia.
County, Georgia.” Proceedings of the Water Environment
Federation 75th Annual Technical Exhibition & Conference Water Environment Federation and American Water
(on CD-ROM), September 28 – October 2, 2002. Chi Works Association. 1998. Using Reclaimed Water to
cago, Illinois. Augment Potable Water Resources, USA. 1998.
Toze, S., and J. Hanna. 2002. “The Survival Potential of Water Pollution Control Federation. 1989. Water Reuse
Enteric Microbial Pathogens in a Reclaimed Water ASR Manual of Practice, Second Edition. Water Pollution Con
Project.” Management of Aquifer Recharge for trol Federation, Alexandria, Virginia.
Sustainability: A. A. Balkems Publishers. Lisse, p. 139
142. Wyvill, J. C., J.C. Adams, and G. E. Valentine. 1984.
“An Assessment of the Potential for Water Reuse in the
Tsuchihashi, R., T. Asano, and R. H. Sakaji. 2002. “Health Pulp and Paper Industry.” U.S. Department of the Inte
Aspects of Groundwater Recharge with Reclaimed Wa rior Report No. RU-84/1. March, 1984.
ter.” Management of Aquifer Recharge for Sustainability.
A. A. Belkema Publishers. Lisse, p. 11-20. Yarbrough, M. E. “Cooling Tower Blowdown Reduction at
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.” NACE Corro-
Turney, D.T., Lansey, K.E., Quanrud, D.M. and R. Arnold sion 93. Paper 650. Arizona Public Service Co. Palo
(In Press) “Endocrine Disruption in Reclaimed Water: Verde Nuclear Generating Sta. Lon C. Brouse, Calgon
Fate During Soil Aquifer Treatment.” Journal of Environ- Corporation, Phoenix, Arizona.
mental Engineering.
Yologe, O., R. Harris, and C. Hunt. 1996. “Reclaimed
U.S. EPA. 2001. “Removal of Endocrine Disruptor Chemi- Water: Responsiveness to Industrial Water Quality Con
cals Using Drinking Water Treatment Processes.” Tech cerns,.” Water Reuse Conference Proceedings. Ameri
nology Transfer and Support Division. Cincinnati, Ohio, can Water Works Association. Denver, Colorado.
EPA/625/R-00/015.
York, D.W., L. Walker-Coleman, and C. Ferraro. 2002.
U.S. EPA . 1999a. “Treatment Wetland Habitat and Wild- “Florida’s Water Reuse Program: Past, Present, and Fu
life Use Assessment: Executive Summary” EPA 832-S- ture Directions.” Proceedings of Symposium XVII. Water
99-001. Office of Water. Washington, D.C. Reuse Association. Orlando, Florida.
U.S. EPA. 1999b. “Free Water Surface Wetlands for Young, R.E., and T. R. Holliman. 1990. “Reclaimed Wa
Wastewater Treatment: A Technology Assesment” EPA- ter in Highrise Office Buildings.” Proceedings of Conserv
832-S-99-002. Office of Water. Washington, D.C. 90, August 12-16. 1990. Phoenix, Arizona.
76
CHAPTER 3
Technical Issues In Planning Water Reuse Systems
This chapter considers technical issues associated with Technical issues of concern in specific reuse applica
planning the beneficial reuse of reclaimed water derived tions are discussed in Chapter 2, “Types of Reuse Ap
from domestic wastewater facilities. These technical is plications.”
sues include the:
3.1 Planning Approach
Identification and characterization of potential de
mands for reclaimed water One goal of the Guidelines for Water Reuse is to outline
a systematic approach to planning for reuse so that plan
Identification and characterization of existing sources ners can make sound preliminary judgments about the
of reclaimed water to determine their potential for local feasibility of reuse, taking into account the full range
reuse of key issues that must be addressed in implementing
reclamation programs.
Treatment requirements for producing a safe and re
liable reclaimed water that is suitable for its intended Figure 3-1 illustrates a 3-phase approach to reuse plan
applications ning. This approach groups reuse planning activities into
successive stages that include preliminary investiga
Storage facilities required to balance seasonal fluc tions, screening of potential markets, and detailed evalu
tuations in supply with fluctuations in demand ation of selected markets. Each stage of activity builds
on previous stages until enough information is available
Supplemental facilities required to operate a water to develop a conceptual reuse plan and to begin negoti
reuse system, such as conveyance and distribution ating the details of reuse with selected users. At each
networks, operational storage facilities, alternative stage, from early planning through implementation, pub
supplies, and alternative disposal facilities lic involvement efforts play an important role. Public in
volvement efforts provide guidance to the planning pro
Potential environmental impacts of implementing cess and outline steps that must be taken to support
water reclamation project implementation.
Identification of knowledge, skills, and abilities nec

essary to operate and maintain the proposed sys
tem
Figure 3-1. Phases of Reuse Program Planning
77
3.1.1 Preliminary Investigations What are the legal liabilities of a purveyor or user of
reclaimed water?
This is a fact-finding phase, meant to rough out physi
cal, economic, and legal/institutional issues related to The major task of this phase involves conducting a pre
water reuse planning. The primary task is to locate all liminary market assessment to identify potential re
potential sources of effluent for reclamation and reuse claimed water users. This calls for defining the water
and all potential markets for reclaimed water. It is also market through discussions with water wholesalers and
important to identify institutional constraints and enabling retailers, and by identifying major water users in the
powers that might affect reuse. This phase should be market. The most common tools used to gather this type
approached with a broad view. Exploration of all possible of information are telephone contacts and/or letters to
options at this early planning stage will establish a prac potential reuse customers. Often, a follow-up phone
tical context for the plan and also help to avoid creating contact is needed in order to determine what portion of
dead-ends in the planning process. total water use might be satisfied by reclaimed water,
what quality of water is required for each type of use,
Questions to be addressed in this phase include: and how the use of reclaimed water might affect the
user’s operations or discharge requirements.
What local sources of effluent might be suitable for
reuse? This early planning stage is an ideal time to begin to
develop or reinforce strong working relationships, among
What are the potential local markets for reclaimed wastewater managers, water supply agencies, and po
water? tential reclaimed water users. These working relation
ships will help to develop solutions that best meet a
What other nontraditional freshwater supplies are particular community’s needs.
available for reuse?
Potential users will be concerned with the quality of re
What are the present and projected reliability ben claimed water and reliability of its delivery. They will also
efits of fresh water in the area? want to understand state and local regulations that ap
ply to the use of reclaimed water. Potential customers
What are the present and projected user costs of will also want to know about constraints to using reclaimed
fresh water in the area? water. They may have questions about connection costs
or additional wastewater treatment costs that might af
What sources of funding might be available to sup fect their ability to use the product.
port the reuse program?
3.1.2 Screening of Potential Markets
How would water reuse “integrate,” or work in har
mony with present uses of other water resources in The essence of this phase is to compare the unit costs
the area? of fresh water to a given market and the unit costs of
reclaimed water to that same market. On the basis of
What public health considerations are associated information gathered in preliminary investigations, one or
with reuse, and how can these considerations be more “intuitive projects” may be developed that are clear
addressed? possibilities, or that just “seem to make sense.” For ex
ample, if a large water demand industry is located next
What are the potential environmental impacts of wa to a wastewater treatment plant, there is a strong poten
ter reuse? tial for reuse. The industry has a high demand for water,
and costs to convey reclaimed water would be low. Typi
What type of reuse system is likely to attract the cally, the cost-effectiveness of providing reclaimed wa
public’s interest and support? ter to a given customer is a function of the customer’s
potential demand versus the distance of the customer
What existing or proposed laws and regulations af from the source of reclaimed water. In considering this
fect reuse possibilities in the area? approach, it should be noted that a concentration of
smaller customers might represent a service area that
What local, state, or federal agencies must review would be as cost-effective to serve as a single large user.
and approve implementation of a reuse program? Once these anchor customers are identified, it is often
beneficial to search for smaller customers located along
the proposed path of the transmission system.
78
The value of reclaimed water – even to an “obvious” po How complicated would program implementation be,
tential user will depend on the: given the number of agencies that would be involved
in each proposed system?
Quality of water to be provided, as compared to the
user’s requirements To what degree would each system advance the “state-
of-the-art” in reuse?
Quantity of fresh water available and the ability to
meet fluctuating demand What level of chemical or energy use would be asso
ciated with each system?
Effects of laws that regulate reuse, and the attitudes
of agencies responsible for enforcing applicable laws How would each system impact land use in the area?
Present and projected future cost of fresh water to Review of user requirements could enable the list of po
the user tential markets to be reduced to a few selected markets
for which reclaimed water could be of significant value.
These questions all involve detailed study, and it may The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program
not be cost-effective for public entities to apply the re (BARWRP) in San Francisco, California used a sophisti
quired analyses to every possible reuse scenario. A cated screening and alternative analysis procedure. This
useful first step is to identify a wide range of candidate included use of a regional GIS-based market assess
reuse systems that might be suitable in the area and to ment, a computer model to evaluate cost-effective meth
screen these alternatives. Then, only the most promising ods for delivery, detailed evaluation criteria, and a spread-
project candidates move forward with detailed evaluations. sheet-based evaluation decision methodology (Bailey et
al., 1998). The City of Tucson, Arizona, also used a GIS
In order to establish a comprehensive list of reuse possi database to identify parcels such as golf courses, parks,
bilities, the following factors should be taken into account: and schools with a potential high demand for turf irriga
tion. In Cary, North Carolina, the parcel database was
Levels of treatment – if advanced wastewater treat joined to the customer-billing database allowing large water
ment (AWT) is currently required prior to discharge users to be displayed on a GIS map. This process was a
of effluent, cost savings might be available if a mar key element in identifying areas with high concentrations
ket exists for secondary treated effluent. of dedicated irrigation meters on the potable water sys
tem (CDM, 1997). As part of an evaluation of water recla
Project size – the scale of reuse can range from mation by the Clark County Sanitation District, Nevada,
conveyance of reclaimed water to a single user up the alternatives analysis was extended beyond the tradi
to the general distribution of reclaimed water for a tional technical, financial, and regulatory considerations
variety of nonpotable uses. to include intangible criteria such as:
Conveyance network – different distribution routes Public acceptance including public education
will have different advantages, taking better advan
tage of existing rights-of-way, for example, or serv Sensitivity to neighbors
ing a greater number of users.
Administrative agencies for the project
In addition to comparing the overall costs estimated for
each alternative, several other criteria can be factored Institutional arrangements to implement
into the screening process. Technical feasibility may be
used as one criterion, and the comparison of estimated Impacts to existing developments as facilities are
unit costs of reclaimed water with unit costs of fresh wa constructed
ter, as another. An even more complex screening pro
cess may include a comparison of weighted values for a Source: Pai et. al., 1996
variety of objective and subjective factors, such as:
3.1.3 Detailed Evaluation of Selected
How much flexibility would each system offer for fu Markets
ture expansion or change?
The evaluation steps contained in this phase represent
How much fresh water use would be replaced by the heart of the analyses necessary to shape a reuse
each system? program. At this point, a certain amount of useful data
79
should be known including the present freshwater con What are the prospects of industrial source control
sumption and costs for selected potential users and a measures in the area, and would institution of such
ranking of “most-likely” projects. In this phase, a more measures reduce the additional treatment steps nec
detailed look at conveyance routes and storage require essary to permit reuse?
ments for each selected system will help to refine pre
liminary cost estimates. Funding and benefit options can How “stable” are the potential users in each selected
be compared, user costs developed, and a comparison candidate reuse system? Are they likely to remain
made between the costs and benefits of fresh water in their present locations? Are process changes
versus reclaimed water for each selected system. The being considered that might affect their ability to use
detailed evaluation will also look in more detail at the reclaimed water?
environmental, institutional, and social aspects of each
project. Many of these questions can be answered only after
further consultation with water supply agencies and pro
Questions that may need to be addressed as part of the spective users. Both groups may seek more detailed
detailed evaluation include: information as well, including the preliminary findings
made in the first 2 phases of effort. The City of Tampa
What are the specific water quality requirements of set the following goals and objectives for their first resi
each user? What fluctuation can be tolerated? dential reclaimed water project:
What is the daily and seasonal water use demand Demonstrate customer demand for the water
pattern for each potential user?
Demonstrate customer willingness to pay for the
Can fluctuations in demand best be met by pump service
ing capacity or by using storage? Where would stor
age facilities best be located? Show that the project would pay for itself and not be
subsidized by any utility customer not receiving re
If additional effluent treatment is required, who claimed water
should own and operate the additional treatment fa
cilities? Make subscription to the reclaimed water service
voluntary
What costs will the users in each system incur in
connecting to the reclaimed water delivery system? Source: Grosh et. al., 2002
Will industrial users in each system face increased Detailed evaluations should lead to a preliminary assess
treatment costs for their waste streams as a result ment of technical feasibility and costs. Comparison
of using reclaimed water? If so, is increased inter among alternative reuse programs will be possible, as
nal recycling likely, and how will this affect their wa well as preliminary comparison between these programs
ter use? and alternative water supplies, both existing and proposed.
In this phase, economic comparisons, technical optimi
Will customers in the service area allow project costs zation steps, and environmental assessment activities
to be spread over the entire service area? leading to a conceptual plan for reuse might be accom
plished by working in conjunction with appropriate con
What interest do potential funding agencies have in sulting organizations.
supporting each type of reuse program being con
sidered? What requirements would these agencies 3.2 Potential Uses of Reclaimed
impose on a project eligible for funding? Water
Will use of reclaimed water require agricultural users Urban public water supplies are treated to satisfy the
to make a change to their irrigation patterns or to requirements for potable use. However, potable use
provide better control of any irrigation discharges? (drinking, cooking, bathing, laundry, and dishwashing)
represents only a fraction of the total daily residential
What payback period is acceptable to users who must use of treated potable water. The remainder may not
invest in additional facilities for onsite treatment, stor require water of potable quality. In many cases, water
age, or distribution of reclaimed water? used for nonpotable purposes, such as irrigation, may
be drawn from the same ground or surface source as
80
municipal supplies, creating an indirect demand on po The remainder of the water use categories are mining
table supplies. The Guidelines examine opportunities for and industrial/commercial with 8 percent of the demand.
substituting reclaimed water for potable water supplies The 2 largest water use categories, thermoelectric power
where potable water quality is not required. Specific re and agricultural irrigation, account for 80 percent of the
use opportunities include: total water use. These water uses present a great poten
tial for supplementing with reclaimed water.
Urban
Figure 3-3 provides a flow chart illustrating the source,
Industrial use, and disposition of fresh water in the U.S. Of the
341,000 mgd (129 x 107 m3/d) of fresh water used in the
Agricultural U.S., only 29 percent is consumptively used and 71 per
cent is return flow. This amounts to a total of 241,000
Environmental and Recreational mgd (91 x 107 m3/d), of which 14 percent originates from
domestic and commercial water use. Domestic waste
Groundwater Recharge water comprises a large portion of this number.
Augmentation of Potable Supplies Figure 3-4 shows estimated wastewater effluent pro
duced daily in each state, representing the total potential
The technical issues associated with the implementa reclaimed water supply from existing wastewater treat
tion of each of these reuse alternatives are discussed in ment facilities. Figure 3-5 shows the estimated water
detail in Chapter 2. The use of reclaimed water to provide demands by state in the United States. Estimated water
both direct and indirect augmentation of potable supplies demands are equal to the total fresh and saline with
is also presented in Chapter 2. drawals for all water-use categories (public supply, do
mestic, commercial, irrigation, livestock, industrial, min
3.2.1 National Water Use ing, and thermoelectric power). Areas where high water
demand exists might benefit by augmenting existing water
Figure 3-2 presents the national pattern of water use in supplies with reclaimed water. Municipalities in coastal
the U.S. according to the U.S. Geological Survey (Solley and arid states, where water demands are high and fresh
et al., 1998). Total water use in 1995 was 402,000 mgd water supplies are limited, appear to have a reasonable
(152 x 107 m3/d) with 341,000 mgd (129 x 107 m3/d) being supply of wastewater effluent that could, through proper
fresh water and 61,000 mgd (23 x 107 m3/d) saline water. treatment and reuse, greatly extend their water supplies.
The largest freshwater demands were associated with
agricultural irrigation/livestock and thermoelectric power, Arid regions of the U.S. (such as the southwest) are can
representing 41 and 39 percent, respectively, of the total didates for wastewater reclamation, and significant rec
freshwater use in the United States. Public and domes lamation projects are underway throughout this region.
tic water uses constitute 12 percent of the total demand. Yet, arid regions are not the only viable candidates for
water reuse. Local opportunities may exist for a given
municipality to benefit from reuse by extending local wa
Figure 3-2. 1995 U.S. Fresh Water Demands by ter supplies and/or reducing or eliminating surface water
Major Uses discharge. For example, the City of Atlanta, Georgia, lo
cated in the relatively water-rich southeast, has experi
enced water restrictions as a result of recurrent droughts.
In south Florida, subtropical conditions and almost 55
inches (140 cm) per year of rainfall suggest an abun
dance of water; however, landscaping practices and re
gional hydrogeology combine to result in frequent water
shortages and restrictions on water use. Thus, opportu
nities for water reclamation and reuse must be examined
on a local level to judge their value and feasibility.
3.2.2 Potential Reclaimed Water Demands
Residential water demand can further be categorized as

indoor use, which includes toilet flushing, cooking, laun
Source: Solley et. al., 1998 dry, bathing, dishwashing, and drinking; or outdoor use,
81
Figure 3-3. Fresh Water Source, Use and
Disposition
Source: Solley et. al., 1998
82
Figure 3-4. Wastewater Treatment Return Flow by State, 1995
Source: Solley et al., 1998
Figure 3-5. Total Withdrawals
Source: Solley et al., 1998
83
which consists primarily of landscape irrigation. Outdoor resent a significant portion of the total potable water de
use accounts for approximately 31 percent of the resi mand in the summer months. In coastal South Carolina,
dential demand, while indoor use represents approxi winter irrigation use is estimated to be less than 10 per
mately 69 percent (Vickers, 2001). Figure 3-6 presents cent of the total potable demand. This increases to over
the average residential indoor water use by category. It 30 percent in the months of June and July. In Denver,
should be noted that these are national averages, and during July and August when temperatures exceed 90 °F
few residential households will actually match these fig (32 °C), approximately 80 percent of all potable water
ures. Inside the home, the largest use of water is toilet may be used for irrigation. Given the seasonal nature of
flushing (almost 30 percent). The potable use (cooking, urban irrigation, eliminating this demand from the potable
drinking, bathing, laundry, and dishwashing) represents system through reuse will result in a net annual reduc
about 60 percent of the indoor water use or about 40 tion in potable demands and, more importantly, may also
percent of the total residential (outdoor and indoor) de significantly reduce peak-month potable water demands.
mand. Reclaimed water could be used for all nonpotable
uses (toilet flushing and outdoor use), which are approxi It is not surprising then that landscape irrigation currently
mately 50 percent of the total residential water demand. accounts for the largest urban use of reclaimed water in
Leaks are neglected in these calculations. the U.S. This is particularly true of urban areas with sub
stantial residential areas and a complete mix of land
Approximately 38 billion gallons of water is produced daily scaped areas ranging from golf courses to office parks
in the U.S. for domestic and public use. On average, a to shopping malls. Urban areas also have schools, parks,
typical American household consumes at least 50 per and recreational facilities, which require regular irrigation.
cent of their water through lawn irrigation. The U.S. has a Within Florida, for example, studies of potable water con
daily requirement of 40 billion gallons (152 million m3) a sumption have shown that 50 to 70 percent of all potable
day of fresh water for general public use. This require water produced is used for outside purposes, principally
ment does not include the 300 billion gallons (1,135 mil irrigation.
lion m3) used for agricultural and commercial purposes.
For example, a dairy cow must consume 4 gallons (15 l) The potential irrigation demand for reclaimed water gen
of water to produce 1 gallon (4 l) of milk, and it takes 300 erated by a particular urban area can be estimated from
million gallons (1.1 million m3) of water to produce a 1 an inventory of the total irrigable acreage to be served
day supply of U.S. newsprint (American Water Works by the reuse system and the estimated weekly irriga
Association Website, 2003). tion rates, determined by factors such as local soil char
acteristics, climatic conditions, and type of landscap
The need for irrigation is highly seasonal. In the North ing. In some states, recommended weekly irrigation rates
where turf goes dormant, irrigation needs will be zero in are available from water management agencies, county
the winter months. However, irrigation demand may rep- or state agricultural agents, and irrigation specialists.
Reclaimed water demand estimates should also take
Figure 3-6. Average Indoor Water Usage into account any other proposed uses for reclaimed
(Total = 69.3 gpcd) water within the proposed service area, such as indus
trial cooling and process water, decorative fountains, and
other aesthetic water features.
Agricultural irrigation represents 40 percent of total water

demand nationwide and presents another significant op
portunity for water reuse, particularly in areas where ag
ricultural sites are near urban areas and can easily be
integrated with urban reuse applications. Such is the case
in Orange County, California, where the Irvine Ranch
Water District provides reclaimed water to irrigate urban
landscape and mixed agricultural lands (orchards and
vegetable row crops). As agricultural land use is displaced
by residential development in this growing urban area,
the District has the flexibility to convert its reclaimed water
service to urban irrigation.
In Manatee County, Florida, agricultural irrigation is a

Source: Vickers, 2001 significant component of a county-wide water reuse pro
84
gram. During 2002, the County’s 3 water reclamation fa the District’s service area for groundwater recharge, land
cilities, with a total treatment capacity of 34.4 mgd (1,500 scape irrigation, agricultural, commercial, and industrial
l/s), provided about 10.2 mgd (446 l/s) of reclaimed wa purposes. It is estimated that more than 195 billion gal
ter. This water was used to irrigate golf courses, parks, lons (740 x 106 m3) of reclaimed water will be reused by
schools, residential subdivisions, a 1,500-acre (600-hect- 2010. Due to long-term conservation programs, additional
are) gladioli farm, and about 6,000 acres (2,400 hect supply agreements, and an increase in the reclaimed
ares) of mixed agricultural lands (citrus, ridge and furrow water supply the District expects to meet the area’s wa
crops, sod farms, and pasture). The original 20-year re ter needs for the next ten years even during times of
use agreements with the agricultural users are being ex critical drought (Metropolitan, 2002).
tended for 10 years, ensuring a long-term commitment
to reclaimed water with a significant water conservation Perhaps the greatest benefit of urban reuse systems is
benefit. The urban reuse system has the potential to grow their contribution to delaying or eliminating the need to
as development grows. Manatee County has more than expand potable water supply and treatment facilities.
385 acres (154 hectares) of lake storage (1,235 million The City of St. Petersburg, Florida, has experienced
gallons or 47 x 105 m3 of volume) and 2 reclaimed water about a 10 percent population growth since 1976 with
aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) projects. out any significant increase in potable water demand
because of its urban reuse program. Prior to the start-up
A detailed inspection of existing or proposed water use of its urban reuse system, the average residential water
is essential for planning any water reuse system. This demand in a study area in St. Petersburg was 435 gal
information is often available through municipal billing lons per day (1,650 l/d). After reclaimed water was made
records or water use monitoring data that is maintained available, the potable water demand was reduced to 220
to meet the requirements of local or regional water man gallons per day (830 l/d) (Johnson and Parnell, 1987).
agement agencies. In other cases, predictive equations Figure 3-7 highlights the City of St. Petersburg’s esti
may be required to adequately describe water demands. mated potable water savings since implementing an ur
Water needs for various reuse alternatives are explored ban reuse program.
further in Chapter 2. In addition to expected nonpotable
uses for reclaimed water, a review of literature shows In 2001, Florida embarked on the Water Conservation
consideration and implementation of reuse projects for a Initiative (FDEP, 2002) – a program designed to promote
wide variety of demands including toilet flushing, com water conservation in an effort to ensure water availabil
mercial car washing, secondary and primary sources of ity for the future. Recognizing the conservation and re
fire protection, textile mills to maintain water features, charge potential of water reuse, a Water Reuse Work
cement manufacturing, and make-up water for commer Group was convened to address the effective and effi
cial air conditioners. By identifying and serving a variety cient use of reclaimed water as a component in overall
of water uses with reclaimed water, the utilization of re strategies to ensure water availability. The Water Re
claimed water facilities can be increased, thereby increas use Work Group published its initial report in 2001
ing the cost effectiveness of the system while at the (FDEP, 2001) and published a more detailed strategy
same time increasing the volume of potable water con report in 2003 (FDEP, 2003). The final reuse strategy
served. report includes 16 major strategies designed to ensure
efficient and effective water reuse. Of particular note
3.2.3 Reuse and Water Conservation are strategies that encourage the use of reclaimed wa
ter meters and volume-based rates, in addition to encour
The need to conserve the potable water supply is an aging groundwater recharge and indirect potable reuse.
important part of urban and regional planning. For ex
ample, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern Cali Currently, approximately 20 percent of all water supplied
fornia predicted in 1990 that by the year 2010 water de by the Irvine Ranch Water District in southern California
mands would exceed reliable supplies by approximately is reclaimed water. Total water demand is expected to
326 billion gallons (1,200 x 109 m3) annually (Adams, reach 69 mgd (3,024 l/s) in Irvine by 2010. At that time
1990). To help conserve the potable water supplies, the Irvine expects to be able to provide service to meet ap
Metropolitan Water District developed a multi-faceted proximately 26 mgd (1,139 l/s) of this demand with re
program that includes conservation incentives, rebate claimed water (Irvine Ranch Water District, 2002). An
programs, groundwater storage, water exchange agree aggressive urban reuse program in Altamonte Springs,
ments, reservoir construction, and reclaimed water Florida is credited with a 30 percent reduction in potable
projects. Urban reuse of reclaimed water is an essential water demands (Forest et al., 1998).
element of the program. In 2001, approximately 62 billion
gallons (330 x 106 m3) of reclaimed water were used in
85
Figure 3-7. Potable and Reclaimed Water Usage in St. Petersburg, Florida
3.3 Sources of Reclaimed Water 3.3.1 Locating the Sources
Under the broad definition of water reclamation and re In areas of growth and new development, completely new
use, sources of reclaimed water may range from indus collection, treatment, and distribution systems may be
trial process waters to the tail waters of agricultural irri designed from the outset with water reclamation and re
gation systems. For the purposes of these guidelines, use in mind. In most cases, however, existing facilities
however, the sources of reclaimed water are limited to will be incorporated into the water reuse system. In ar
the effluent generated by domestic wastewater treat eas where centralized treatment is already provided, ex
ment facilities (WWTFs). isting WWTFs are potential sources of reclaimed water.
Treated municipal wastewater represents a significant In the preliminary planning of a water reuse system in
potential source of reclaimed water for beneficial reuse. corporating existing facilities, the following information
As a result of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is needed for the initial evaluation:
Amendments of 1972, the Clean Water Act of 1977 and
its subsequent amendments, centralized wastewater Residential areas and their principal sewers
treatment has become commonplace in urban areas of
the U.S. In developed countries, approximately 73 per Industrial areas and their principal sewers
cent of the population is served by wastewater collection
and treatment facilities. Yet only 35 percent of the popu Wastewater treatment facilities
lation of developing countries is served by wastewater
collection. Within the U.S., the population generates an Areas with combined sewers
estimated 41 billion gallons per day (1.8 x 106 l/s) of
potential reclaimed water (Solley et al., 1998). As the Existing effluent disposal facilities
world population continues to shift from rural to urban,
the number of centralized wastewater collection and treat Areas and types of projected development
ment systems will also increase, creating significant
opportunities to implement water reuse systems to aug Locations of potential reclaimed water users
ment water supplies and, in many cases, improve the
quality of surface waters. For minimizing capital costs, the WWTFs ideally should
be located near the major users of the reclaimed water.
However, in adapting an existing system for water re
use, other options are available. For example, if a trunk
86
sewer bearing flows to a WWTF passes through an area 3.3.2 Characterizing the Sources
of significant potential reuse, a portion of the flows can
be diverted to a new “satellite” reclamation facility to serve Existing sources must be characterized to roughly es
that area. The sludge produced in the satellite reclama tablish the wastewater effluent’s suitability for reclama
tion facility can be returned to the sewer for handling at tion and reuse. To compare the quality and quantity of
the WWTF. By this method, odor problems may be re available reclaimed water with the requirements of po
duced or eliminated at the satellite reclamation facility. tential users, information about the operation and per
However, the effects of this practice can be deleterious formance of the existing WWTF and related facilities
to both sewers and downstream treatment facilities. Al must be examined. Important factors to consider in this
ternatively, an effluent outfall passing through a poten preliminary stage of reuse planning are:
tial reuse area could be tapped for some or all of the
effluent, and additional treatment could be provided, if Level of treatment (e.g., primary, secondary, advanced)
necessary, to meet reclaimed water quality standards. and specific treatment processes (e.g., ponds, acti
These alternative configurations are illustrated in Figure vated sludge, filtration, disinfection, nutrient removal,
3-8. disinfection)
Effluent water quality

Figure 3-8. Three Configuration Alternatives
for Water Reuse Systems
Effluent quantity (use of historical data to determine
daily and season at average, maximum, and mini
mum flows)
Industrial wastewater contributions to flow
System reliability
Supplemental facilities (e.g., storage, pumping, trans

mission)
3.3.2.1 Level of Treatment and Processes
Meeting all applicable treatment requirements for the pro

duction of safe, reliable reclaimed water is one of the
keys to operating any water reuse system. Thus careful
analysis of applicable state and local requirements and
provision of all necessary process elements are critical
in designing a reuse system. Because of differing envi
ronmental conditions from region to region across the
country, and since different end uses of the reclaimed
water require different levels of treatment, a universal
quality standard for reclaimed water does not exist. In
the past, the main objective of treatment for reclaimed
water was secondary treatment and disinfection. As
wastewater effluent is considered a source for more and
more uses, such as industrial process water or even po
table supply water, the treatment focus has expanded
beyond secondary treatment and disinfection to include
treatment for other containments such as metals, dis
solved solids, and emerging contaminants (such as phar
maceutical residue and endocrine disruptors). However,
at this early planning stage, only a preliminary assess
ment of the compatibility of the secondary effluent qual
ity and treatment facilities with potential reuse applica
tions is needed. A detailed discussion of treatment re
87
quirements for water reuse applications is provided in trial reuse, however, nutrients may encourage biological
Section 3.4. growths that could cause fouling. Where the latter uses
are a small fraction of the total use, the customer may
Knowledge of the chemical constituents in the effluent, be obliged to remove the nutrients or blend reclaimed
the level of treatment, and the treatment processes pro water with other water sources. The decision is based on
vided is important in evaluating the WWTF’s suitability case-by-case assessments.
as a water reclamation facility and determining possible
reuse applications. An existing plant providing at least In some cases, the water quality data needed to assess
secondary treatment, while not originally designed for the suitability of a given source are not included in the
water reclamation and reuse, can be upgraded by modi WWTF’s existing monitoring requirements and will have
fying existing processes or adding new unit processes to be gathered specifically for the reuse evaluation.
to the existing treatment train to supply reclaimed water Coastal cities may experience saltwater infiltration into
for most uses. For example, with the addition of chemi their sewer system, resulting in elevated chloride con
cals, filters, and other facilities to ensure reliable disin centrations in the effluent or reclaimed water. Chloride
fection, most secondary effluents can be enhanced to levels are of concern in irrigation because high levels
provide a source of reclaimed water suitable for unre are toxic to many plants. However, chloride levels at
stricted urban reuse. However, in some parts of the U.S., WWTFs typically are not monitored. Even in the absence
the effluent from a secondary treatment system may of saltwater infiltration, industrial contributions or prac
contain compounds of concern. Such effluent may not tices within the community being served may adversely
be used because it could result in water quality prob impact reclaimed water quality. The widespread use of
lems. In these cases, treatment processes must be se water softeners may increase the concentration of salts
lected to reduce these compounds before they are re to levels that make the reclaimed water unusable for
leased. This can create additional disposal issues as some applications. High chlorides from saltwater infil
well. A typical example would be the presence of elevated tration led the City of Punta Gorda, Florida to cease re
TDS levels within the effluent, resulting in problems where claimed water irrigation in 2001. This facility had irrigated
the reclaimed water is used for irrigation (Sheikh et al., an underdrained agricultural site for almost 20 years, but
1997; Dacko, 1997; Johnson, 1998). flow discharged from the underdrains caused a violation
of conductivity limitations in the receiving water.
In some cases, existing processes necessary for efflu
ent disposal practices may no longer be required for Damage to landscape plants in the City of St. Peters
water reuse. For example, an advanced wastewater burg, Florida, was traced to elevated chlorides in the
treatment plant designed to remove nitrogen and/or reclaimed water. This coastal city operates 4 reclama
phosphorus would not be needed for agricultural or ur tion plants and those serving older beach communities
ban irrigation, since the nutrients in the reclaimed water are prone to saltwater infiltration. In response to this prob
are beneficial to plant growth. lem, the City initiated on-line monitoring of conductance
in order to identify and halt the use of unacceptable wa
In addition to the unit processes required to produce a ter. The City also developed a planting guide for reclaimed
suitable quality of reclaimed water, the impact of any water customers to identify foliage more and less suit
return streams (e.g., filter backwash, RO concentrate able for use with reclaimed water service (Johnson, 1998).
return, etc.) to the WWTF’s liquid and solids handling The Carmel Area Wastewater District in California expe
processes should be considered. rienced a similar problem with golf course turf associ
ated with elevated sodium. This was due to a combina
3.3.2.2 Reclaimed Water Quality tion of the potable water treatment processes being used,
and the prevalence of residential and commercial water
Effluent water quality sampling and analysis are required softeners. Solutions included the use of gypsum, peri
as a condition of WWTF discharge permits. The specific odic use of potable water for irrigation to flush the root
parameters tested are those required for preserving the zone, a switch from sodium hydroxide to potassium hy
water quality of the receiving water body, (e.g., biochemi droxide for corrosion control, and attempts to reduce the
cal oxygen demand, suspended solids, coliforms or other use of self-regenerating water softeners (Sheikh et al.,
indicators, nutrients, and sometimes toxic organics and 1997). Some coastal communities, or areas where salin
metals). This information is useful in the preliminary evalu ity is a concern, have begun to restrict the discharge of
ation of a wastewater utility as a potential source of re chemical salts into the sanitary sewer system either by
claimed water. For example, as noted earlier, the nitro requiring their placement in a special brine line or by charg
gen and phosphorus in reclaimed water represents an ing a fee for their treatment and removal (Sheikh and
advantage for certain irrigation applications. For indus Rosenblum, 2002). A California state law recently gave
88
local jurisdictions the ability to prohibit the use of self- phates, and nutrients are present, unless additional treat
regenerating water softeners that had been previously ment is provided by the industrial facility. Recreational
exempt from regulation by a prior statute (California Health reuse might be limited by nutrients, which could result in
and Safety Code). unsightly and odorous algae blooms. Trace metals in high
concentrations might restrict the use of reclaimed water
The West Basin Municipal Water District in southwest for agricultural and horticultural irrigation.
Los Angeles County, California, created designer re
claimed water of different qualities to increase their re 3.3.2.3 Reclaimed Water Quantity
claimed water customer base. Table 3-1 describes the
5 different grades of designer water they produce and Just as the potable water purveyor must meet diurnal
supply to their 200-square mile area of customers. and seasonal variations in demand, so too must the
purveyor meet variations in demand for reclaimed water.
For the purpose of reuse planning, it is best to consider Diurnal and seasonal fluctuations in supply and demand
reclaimed water quality from the standpoint of water sup must be taken into account at the preliminary design stage
ply, (i.e., what quality is required for the intended use?). of any water reclamation system. Such an approach is
Where a single large customer dominates the demand warranted, given the fact that diurnal and seasonal sup
for reclaimed water, the treatment selected may suit that plies and demands for reclaimed water often exhibit more
particular, major customer. In Pomona, California, acti variations than that of potable water and, in many cases,
vated carbon filters were used in place of conventional the peaks in supply and demand are independent of one
sand filters at the reclamation plant to serve paper mills another.
that require low color in their water supply.
For example, WWTF flows tend to be low at night, when
Industrial reuse might be precluded if high levels of dis urban irrigation demand tends to be high. Seasonal flow
solved solids, dissolved organic material, chlorides, phos fluctuations may occur in resort areas due to the influx
Table 3-1. Five Grades of Reclaimed Water Produced by West Basin MWD
Grade Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
Name Tertiary Nitrified Pure RO Softened RO Ultra-Pure RO
Secondary effluent;
Tertiary water with Secondary water plus micro-Grade 3 plus lime softening
Treatment additional filtration Double pass RO
ammonia removal filtration and RO treatment
and disinfection
Indirect potable reuse for
Landscape; golf Low pressure boiler feed High pressure boiler feed
Use Cooling towers the Water Replenishment
course irrigation for refineries for refineries
District
Softening the water
preserves the pipes that High pressure increases the
Need to reduce
deliver the water to the need to further reduce
contaminants that cause
Human contact and Need to remove ammonia injection wells. Micro contaminants that cause
Quality Drivers scaling; strong desire to
health requirements to reduce corrosion filtration and RO have been scaling. Desire to use the
use the water multiple
perceived as providing water multiple times in the
times in the process
acceptable treatment for process
indirect potable reuse.
No contractual
No contractual guarantees. No contractual guarantees.
guarantee; 100%
Reliability No information provided No contractual guarantees May be perceived as more Probably perceived as more
reliable due to
reliable reliable
constant source
25 - 40% discount Approximately 20% 100% price premium
Equal to baseline standard 20% discount from baseline
Price from baseline discounted from baseline compared to the baseline
or slightly higher standard
standard standard standard
2001-02
2,600 8,300 6,500 7,300 2,600
Volume (AF)
Adapted from: “West Basin Municipal Water District: 5 Designer (Recycled) Waters to Meet Customer’s Needs”
produced by Darryl G. Miller, General Manager, West Basin Municipal Water District, Carson, California.
89
of tourists, and seasons of high flow do not necessarily with substantial industrial flows will require identification
correspond with seasons of high irrigation demand. Fig- of the constituents that may interfere with particular re
ure 3-9 illustrates the fluctuations in reclaimed water use applications, and appropriate monitoring for param
supply and irrigation demand in a southwest Florida eters of concern. Wastewater treatment facilities receiv
community. Treatment facilities serving college cam ing substantial amounts of high-strength industrial wastes
puses, resort areas, etc. also experience significant fluc may be limited in the number and type of suitable reuse
tuations in flow throughout the year. Where collection applications.
systems are prone to infiltration and inflow, significant
fluctuations in flow may occur during the rainy season. 3.4 Treatment Requirements for Water
Reuse
Information about flow quantities and fluctuations is criti
cal in order to determine the size of storage facilities One of the most critical objectives in any reuse program
needed to balance supply and demand in water reuse is to ensure that public health protection is not compro
systems. A more detailed discussion of seasonal stor mised through the use of reclaimed water. To date there
age requirements is provided in Section 3.5. Operational have not been any confirmed cases of infectious dis
storage requirements to balance diurnal flow variations ease resulting from the use of properly treated reclaimed
are detailed in Section 3.6.3. water in the U.S. Other objectives, such as preventing
environmental degradation, avoiding public nuisance,
3.3.2.4 Industrial Wastewater Contributions and meeting user requirements, must also be satisfied,
but the starting point remains the safe delivery and use
Industrial waste streams differ from domestic wastewa of properly treated reclaimed water.
ter in that they may contain relatively high levels of ele
ments and compounds, which may be toxic to plants Protection of public health is achieved by: (1) reducing
and animals or may adversely impact treatment plant or eliminating concentrations of pathogenic bacteria,
performance. Where industrial wastewater flow contri parasites, and enteric viruses in the reclaimed water, (2)
butions to the WWTF are significant, reclaimed water controlling chemical constituents in reclaimed water, and/
quality may be affected. The degree of impact will, of or (3) limiting public exposure (contact, inhalation, inges
course, depend on the nature of the industry. A rigor tion) to reclaimed water. Reclaimed water projects may
ous pretreatment program is required for any water rec vary significantly in the level of human exposure incurred,
lamation facility that receives industrial wastes to en with a corresponding variation in the potential for health
sure the reliability of the biological treatment processes risks. Where human exposure is likely in a reuse appli
by excluding potentially toxic levels of pollutants from cation, reclaimed water should be treated to a high de
the sewer system. Planning a reuse system for a WWTF gree prior to its use. Conversely, where public access to
Figure 3-9. Reclaimed Water Supply vs. Irrigation Demand
90
a reuse site can be restricted so that exposure is un Reclaimed water quality standards have evolved over
likely, a lower level of treatment may be satisfactory, a long period of time, based on both scientific stud
provided that worker safety is not compromised. ies and practical experience. Chapter 4 provides a
summary of state requirements for different types of
Determining the necessary treatment for the intended reuse projects. While requirements might be similar
reuse application requires an understanding of the: from state to state, allowable concentrations and the
constituents monitored are state-specific. Chapter 4
Constituents of concern in wastewater also provides suggested guidelines for reclaimed water
quality as a function of use.
Levels of treatment and processes applicable for re
ducing these constituents to levels that achieve the Which treatment processes are needed to achieve
desired reclaimed water quality the required reclaimed water quality?
3.4.1 Health Assessment of Water Reuse While it must be acknowledged that raw wastewa
ter may pose a significant risk to public health, it is
The types and concentrations of pathogenic organisms equally important to point out that current treatment
found in raw wastewater are a reflection of the enteric technologies allow water to be treated to almost any
organisms present in the customer base of the collec quality desired. For many uses of reclaimed water,
tion system. Chemical pollutants of concern may also appropriate water quality can be achieved through
be present in untreated wastewater. These chemicals conventional, widely practiced treatment processes.
may originate from any customer with access to the Advanced treatment beyond secondary treatment
collection system, but are typically associated with in may be required as the level of human contact in
dustrial customers. Recent studies have shown that creases.
over-the-counter and prescription drugs are often found
in wastewater. Which sampling/monitoring protocols are required to
ensure that water quality objectives are being met?
The ability for waterborne organisms to cause disease
is well established. Our knowledge of the hazards of As with any process, wastewater reuse programs
chemical pollutants varies. In most cases, these con must be monitored to confirm that they are operat
cerns are based on the potential that adverse health ing as expected. Once a unit process is selected,
effects may occur due to long-term exposure to rela there are typically standard Quality Assurance/Qual-
tively low concentrations. In addition, chemicals capable ity Control (QA/QC) practices to assure that the sys
of mimicking hormones have been shown to disrupt the tem is functioning as designed. Reuse projects will
endocrine systems of aquatic animals. often require additional monitoring to prevent the
discharge of substandard water to the reclamation
In order to put these concerns into perspective with re system. On-line, real-time water quality monitoring
spect to water reclamation, it is important to consider is typically used for this purpose.
the following questions.
3.4.1.1 Mechanism of Disease Transmission
What is the intended use of the reclaimed water?
For the purposes of this discussion, the definition of dis
Consideration should be given to the expected de ease is limited to illness caused by microorganisms.
gree of human contact with the reclaimed water. It is Health issues associated with chemical constituents in
reasonable to assume that reclaimed water used for reclaimed water are discussed in Section 3.4.1.7. Dis
the irrigation of non-food crops on a restricted agri eases associated with microorganisms can be trans
cultural site may be of lesser quality than water used mitted by water to humans either directly by ingestion,
for landscape irrigation at a public park or school, inhalation, or skin contact of infectious agents, or indi
which in turn may be of a lesser quality than reclaimed rectly by contact with objects or individuals previously
water intended to augment potable supplies. contaminated. The following circumstances must occur
for an individual to become infected through exposure
Given the intended use of reclaimed water, what con to reclaimed water: (a) the infectious agent must be
centrations of microbiological organisms and chemi present in the community and, hence, in the wastewa
cals of concern are acceptable? ter from that community; (b) the agents must survive, to
a significant degree, all of the wastewater treatment
processes to which they are exposed; (c) the individual
91
must either directly or indirectly come into contact with Most of the organisms found in untreated wastewater
the reclaimed water; and (d) the agents must be present are known as enteric organisms; they inhabit the intesti
in sufficient numbers to cause infection at the time of nal tract where they can cause disease, such as diar
contact. rhea. Table 3-2 lists many of the infectious agents po
tentially present in raw domestic wastewater. These mi
The primary means of ensuring reclaimed water can be crobes can be classified into 3 broad groups: bacteria,
used for beneficial purposes is first to provide the ap parasites (parasitic protozoa and helminths), and viruses.
propriate treatment to reduce or eliminate pathogens. Table 3-2 also lists the diseases associated with each
Treatment processes typically employed in water recla organism.
mation systems are discussed below and in Section
3.4.2. Additional safeguards are provided by reducing a. Bacteria
the level of contact with reclaimed water. Section 3.6
discusses a variety of cross-connection control mea Bacteria are microscopic organisms ranging from approxi
sures that typically accompany reuse systems. mately 0.2 to 10 µm in length. They are distributed ubiq
uitously in nature and have a wide variety of nutritional
The large variety of pathogenic microorganisms that may requirements. Many types of harmless bacteria colonize
be present in raw domestic wastewater is derived prin in the human intestinal tract and are routinely shed in the
cipally from the feces of infected humans and primarily feces. Pathogenic bacteria are also present in the feces
transmitted by consumption. Thus, the main transmis of infected individuals. Therefore, municipal wastewater
sion route is referred to as the “fecal-oral” route. Con can contain a wide variety and concentration range of
taminated water is an important conduit for fecal-oral bacteria, including those pathogenic to humans. The num
transmission to humans and occurs either by direct con bers and types of these agents are a function of their
sumption or by the use of contaminated water in agri prevalence in the animal and human community from
culture and food processing. There are occasions when which the wastewater is derived. Three of the more com
host infections cause passage of pathogens in urine. mon bacterial pathogens found in raw wastewater are
The 3 principal infections leading to significant appear Salmonella sp, Shigella sp. and enteropathogenic Es-
ance of pathogens in urine are: urinary schistosomiasis, cherichia coli which have caused drinking water outbreaks
typhoid fever, and leptospirosis. Coliform and other bac with significant numbers of cases of hemolytic uremic
teria may be numerous in urine during urinary tract infec syndrome (HUS) and multiple deaths (e.g. Walkerton,
tions. Since the incidence of these diseases in the U.S. Ontario; Washington County, NY; Cabool, MO; Alpine,
is very low, they constitute little public health risk in wa WY).
ter reuse. Microbial agents resulting from venereal infec
tions can also be present in urine, but they are so vulner Bacterial levels in wastewater can be significantly low
able to conditions outside the body that wastewater is ered through either a “removal” or an “inactivation” pro
not a predominant vehicle of transmission (Feachem et cess. The removal process involves the physical sepa
al., 1983 and Riggs, 1989). ration of the bacteria from the wastewater through sedi
mentation and/or filtration. Due to density considerations,
3.4.1.2 Pathogenic Microorganisms and Health bacteria do not settle as individual cells or even colo
Risks nies. Typically, bacteria can adsorb to particulate matter
or floc particles. These particles settle during sedimen
The potential transmission of infectious disease by patho tation, secondary clarification, or during an advanced
genic agents is the most common concern associated treatment process such as coagulation/flocculation/sedi-
with reuse of treated municipal wastewater. Fortunately, mentation using a coagulant. Bacteria can also be re
sanitary engineering and preventive medical practices have moved by using a filtration process that includes sand
combined to reach a point where waterborne disease filters, disk (cloth) filters, or membrane processes. Fil
outbreaks of epidemic proportions have, to a great ex tration efficiency for a sand or cloth filter is dependent
tent, been controlled. However, the potential for disease upon the effective pore size of the filtering medium and
transmission through water has not been eliminated. With the presence of a “pre-coat” layer, usually other particu
few exceptions, the disease organisms of epidemic his late matter. Because the pore sizes inherent to
tory are still present in today’s sewage. The level of treat microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes (including
ment today is more related to severing the transmission those membranes used in membrane bioreactors), bac
chain than to fully eradicating the disease agents. teria are, to a large extent, completely removed due to
size exclusion. Ultimately, the sedimented or filtered bac
Many infectious disease microbes affecting individuals in teria are removed from the overall treatment system
a community can find their way into municipal sewage. through the sludge and backwash treatment system.
92
Table 3-2. Infectious Agents Potentially Present in Untreated Domestic Wastewater
Pathoge n Dis e as e
Bac teria
Shigella ( s pp.) Shigellos is (bac illary dy s entery )
Salmonella typhi Ty phoid fev er
Salmonella (1700 s eroty pes s pp.) Salmonellos is
Vib ro c holerae Cholera
Es c heric hia c oli (enteropathogenic ) G as troenteritis and s eptic emia,
hemoly tic uremic s y ndrome (HUS)
Yers inia enteroc olitic a Yers inios is
Leptos pira (s pp.) Leptos piros is
Campylob ac ter jejune G as troenteritis , reac tiv e arthritis
Protoz oa
Entamoeb a his tolytic a Amebias is (amebic dy s entery )
G iardia lamb lia G iardias is (gas troenteritis )
Cryptos poridium Cry ptos poridios is , diarrhea, fev er
Mic ros poridia Diarrhea
Helminths
As c aris lumb ric oides As c arias is (roundw orm infec tion)
Anc ylos toma (s pp) Ancy lostomiasis (hook worm infection)
Nec ator americ anus Nec atorias is (roundworm infec tion)
Anc ylos toma (s pp.) Cutaneous larv a migrams (hook worm infec tion)
Strongloides s terc oralis Strongy loidias is (threadworm infection)
Tric huris tric hiura Tric hurias is (whipw orm infec tion)
Taenia (s pp.) Taenias is (tapeworm infec tion)
Enterob ius vermic ularis Enterobias is (pinwork infec tion)
Ec hinoc oc c us granulos us (s pp.) Hy datidos is (tapeworm infec tion)
Virus es
Enteroviruses (polio, echo, coxsackie, G as troenteritis , heart anomolies , meningitis ,
new enterovirus es, serotype 68 to 71) others
Hepatitis A and E v irus Infec tious hepatitis
Res piratory dis eas e, ey e infec tions ,
Adenov irus
gas troenteritis (serotype 40 and 41)
Rotav irus G as troenteritis
Parv ov irus G as troenteritis
Noroviruses Diarrhea, vomiting, fev er
As trov irus G as troenteritis
C alic iv irus G as troenter itis
Coronav irus G as troenteritis
Source: Adapted from National Research Council, 1996; Sagik et. al., 1978; and Hurst et. al., 1989
Inactivation of bacteria refers to the destruction (death) pounds, generally inactivate bacteria cells by disrupting
of bacteria cells or the interference with reproductive DNA, thus causing direct cell death and/or inhibiting abil
ability using a chemical or energy agent. Such inactiva- ity to reproduce. UV light also inactivates bacteria by
tion is usually referred to as disinfection. The most com- damaging the DNA, thus inhibiting the ability to repro-
mon disinfectants used in wastewater treatment are free duce. Ozone, another powerful oxidant, can cause cell
chlorine, chloramines, ultraviolet (UV) light, and ozone. inactivation by direct damage to the cell wall and mem-
Chlorine, a powerful chemical oxidant, generally inacti- brane, disruption of enzymatic reaction, and damage to
vates bacterial cells by causing physiological damage to DNA. The relative effectiveness of each chemical disin
cell membranes and damage to the internal cell compo- fectant is generally related to the product of disinfectant
nents. Chloramines, chlorine substituted ammonia com- concentration and the disinfectant contact time. This prod
93
uct is commonly referenced as the “Ct” value. Tables of There are several helminthic parasites that occur in waste
various Ct values required to inactivate bacteria (and other water. Examples include the roundworm Ascaris as well
pathogens, such as viruses and protozoans) are readily as other nematodes such as the hookworms and pin
available in the literature for clean (filtered) water appli worm. Many of the helminths have complex life cycles,
cations. These Ct values are a function of temperature, including a required stage in intermediate hosts. The in
pH, and the desired level of inactivation. fective stage of some helminths is either the adult organ
ism or larvae, while the eggs or ova of other helminths
In recognition of the many constraints associated with constitute the infective stage of the organisms. The eggs
analyzing wastewater for all of the potential pathogens and larvae, which range in size from about 10 µm to more
that may be present, it has been common practice to than 100 µm, are resistant to environmental stresses and
use a microbial indicator or surrogate to indicate fecal may survive usual wastewater disinfection procedures.
contamination of water. Some bacteria of the coliform Helminth ova are readily removed by commonly used
group have long been considered the prime indicators wastewater treatment processes such as sedimentation,
of fecal contamination and are the most frequently ap filtration, or stabilization ponds. A 1992 study in St. Pe
plied indicators used by state regulatory agencies to tersburg, Florida, showed helminths were completely re
monitor water quality. The coliform group is composed moved in the secondary clarifiers (Rose and Carnahan,
of a number of bacteria that have common metabolic 1992).
attributes. The total coliform groups are all gram-nega-
tive aspogenous rods, and most are found in feces of In recent years, the protozoan parasites have emerged
warm-blooded animals and in soil. Fecal coliforms are, as a significant human health threat in regards to chlo
for the most part, bacteria restricted to the intestinal tract rinated drinking water. In particular, the protozoa such
of warm-blooded animals and comprise a portion of the as Giardia lamblia, Cryptosporidium pavum, and
total coliform group. Coliform organisms are used as Cyclospora cayetanensis have caused numerous water
indicators because they occur naturally in the feces of borne and/or foodborne outbreaks. Microsporidia spp.
warm-blooded animals in higher concentrations than have also been implicated as a waterborne pathogen
pathogens, are easily detectable, exhibit a positive cor (Cotte et al., 1999).
relation with fecal contamination, and generally respond
similarly to environmental conditions and treatment pro Protozoan pathogens can be reduced in wastewater by
cesses as many bacterial pathogens. Where low levels the same previously described mechanisms of removal
of coliform organisms are used to indicate the absence and inactivation. Cryptosporidium oocysts are 4 to 6 mm
of pathogenic bacteria, there is consensus among mi in diameter while Giardia cysts range between 8 to 16
crobiologists that the total coliform analysis is not supe mm in diameter. Due to the relatively large size com
rior to the fecal coliform analysis. Specific methods have pared to bacteria, the protozoa can be removed by prop
been developed to detect and enumerate Escherichia erly designed and operated sedimentation and filtration
coli for use as a potential indicator organism. systems commonly employed in wastewater and water
treatment. In terms of inactivation, commonly used dis
b. Parasitic Protozoa and Helminths infectants such as chlorine are not as effective for inac
tivating the protozoa as compared to bacteria and vi
The most common parasites in domestic untreated waste ruses. Table 3-3 shows the relative microbial resistance
water include several genera in the microspora, proto to disinfection compared to E. coli. For the chemical
zoa, trematode, and nematode families. Since the para disinfectants, a higher Ct value is required to show an
sites cannot multiply in the environment, they require a equal level of inactivation as compared to bacteria. Ad
host to reproduce and are excreted in the feces as vanced disinfection using irradiation such as UV or elec
spores, cysts, oocysts, or eggs, which are robust and tron beam treatments have been shown to be effective
resistant to environmental stresses such as dessication, for inactivating the pathogens with the necessary fluence
heat, and sunlight. Most parasite spores, cysts, oocysts, or dose being roughly equivalent to that required by
and eggs are larger than bacteria and range in size from some bacteria.
1 µm to over 60 µm. While these parasites can be present
in the feces of infected individuals who exhibit disease c. Viruses
symptoms, carriers with unapparent infections can also
excrete them, as may be the case with bacteria and viral Viruses are obligate intracellular parasites able to multi
infections as well. Furthermore, some protozoa such as ply only within a host cell and are host-specific. Viruses
Toxoplasma and Cryptosporidium are among the most occur in various shapes and range in size from 0.01 to
common opportunistic infections in patients with acquired 0.3 µm in cross-section and are composed of a nucleic
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) (Slifko et al., 2000). acid core surrounded by an outer coat of protein. Bacte
94
riophage are viruses that infect bacteria as the host; they are less effective at removal. Significant virus removal
have not been implicated in human infections and are can be achieved with ultrafiltration membranes, possibly
often used as indicators in seeded virus studies. Coliph in the 3- to 4-log range. However, for viruses, inactiva
ages are host specific viruses that infect the coliform tion is generally considered the more important of the 2
bacteria. main reduction methods. Due to the size and relatively
noncomplex nature of viruses, most disinfectants dem
Enteric viruses multiply in the intestinal tract and are onstrate reasonable inactivation levels at relatively low Ct
released in the fecal matter of infected persons. Not all values. Interestingly, for UV light disinfection, relatively
types of enteric viruses have been determined to cause high fluence values are required to inactivate viruses when
waterborne disease, but over 100 different enteric vi compared to bacteria and protozoans. It is believed that
ruses are capable of producing infections or disease. In the protein coat of the virus shields the ribonucleic acid
general, viruses are more resistant to environmental (RNA) from UV light.
stresses than many of the bacteria, although some vi
ruses persist for only a short time in wastewater. The 3.4.1.3 Presence and Survival of Pathogens
Enteroviruses, Rotavirus, and the Enteric Adenoviruses,
which are known to cause respiratory illness, gastroen a. Presence
teritis, and eye infections, have been isolated from
wastewater. Of the viruses that cause diarrheal disease, Bacteria, viruses, and parasites can all be detected in
only the Noroviruss and Rotavirus have been shown to be wastewater. Studies of pathogens have reported aver
major waterborne pathogens (Rose, 1986) capable of age levels of 6.2, 5.8, and 5.3 log cfu/100ml of Yersinia,
causing large outbreaks of disease. Shigella, and Salmonella detected in primary-clarified
sewage influent over a 2-year period in a U.S. facility
There is no evidence that the Human Immunodeficiency (Hench et al., 2003). Salmonella may be present in con
Virus (HIV), the pathogen that causes AIDS, can be trans centrations up to 10,000/l. The excretion of Salmonella
mitted via a waterborne route (Riggs, 1989). The results typhi by asymptomatic carriers may vary from 5 x 103 to
of one laboratory study (Casson et al., 1992), where pri 45 x 106 bacteria/g of feces. But there are few studies in
mary and undisinfected secondary effluent samples were recent years, which have directly investigated the pres
inoculated with HIV (Strain IIIB) and held for up to 48 ence of bacterial pathogens and have focused more
hours at 25° C (77° F), indicated that HIV survival was often on the indicator bacteria. Concentrations excreted
significantly less than Polio virus survival under similar by infected individuals range from 106 cysts, 107 oocysts
conditions. A similar study by Casson et al. in 1997 indi and as high as 1012 virus particle per gram of feces for
cated that untreated wastewater spiked with blood cells Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and Rotavirus, respectively
infected with the HIV exhibited a rapid loss of HIV, al (Gerba, 2000). Pathogen levels in wastewater can vary
though a small fraction remained stable for 48 hours. depending on infection in the community.
Similar to bacteria and protozoan parasites, viruses can Levels of viruses, parasites, and indicator bacteria re
be both physically removed from the wastewater or inac ported in untreated and secondary treated effluents are
tivated. However, due to the relatively small size of typi shown in Tables 3-4 and 3-5. These tables illustrate the
cal viruses, the sedimentation and filtration processes tremendous range in the concentrations of microorgan-
Table 3-3. Ct Requirements for Free Chlorine and Chlorine Dioxide to Achieve 99 Percent
Inactivation of E. Coli Compared to Other Microorganisms
% Greater Cl2 Ct % Greater Chloramine Ct

Chloramine
Microbe Cl2 Ct Requirement Requirement Compared
Ct
Compared to E. Coli to E. Coli
E. Coli 0.6 NA 113 NA

Poliovirus 1.7 96% 1,420 170%
Giardia 54-250 196-199% 430-580 117-135%
Cryptosporidium >7,200 >200% >7,200 >194%
Adapted from: Maier, 2000
95
isms that may be found in raw and secondary wastewa Table 3-5. Microorganism Concentrations in
ter. Secondary Non-Disinfected
Wastewater
The methods currently used to detect Cryptosporidium
oocysts and Giardia cysts are limited since they cannot Average Concentrations
assess viability or potential infectivity. Therefore, the Organism
(CFU, PFU, or Cysts/Oocysts per 100L)
health risks associated with finding oocysts and cysts Fecal Coliforms 7,764
in the environment cannot be accurately ascertained Enterococci 2,186
from occurrence data and the risks remain unknown. Enteric virus 20 to 650
Giardia cysts 5 to 2,297
Dowd et al. (1998) described a polymerase chain reac Cryptosporidium oocysts 140
tion (PCR) method to detect and identify the microsporidia
(amplifying the small subunit ribosomal DNA of Source: NRC, 1998
microsporidia). They found isolates in sewage, surface
waters, and ground waters. The strain that was most of b. Survival
ten detected was Enterocytozoon bieneusi, which is a
cause of diarrhea and excreted from infected individuals Most pathogens do not increase in numbers outside of
into wastewater. Microsporidia spores have been shown their host, although in some instances the ova of helm
to be stable in the environment and remain infective for inths do not mature to the larval stage until they are in
days to weeks outside their hosts (Shadduck, 1989; the soil. In all cases, the numbers decrease at various
Waller, 1980; Shadduck and Polley, 1978). Because of rates, depending on a number of factors including the
their small size (1 to 5 µm), they may be difficult to re inherent biologic nature of the agent, temperature, pH,
move using conventional filtration techniques. However, sunlight, relative humidity, and competing flora and fauna.
initial studies using cell culture suggest that the spores Examples of relative survival times for some pathogens
may be more susceptible to disinfection (Wolk et al., are given in Table 3-6. These values are intended to
2000). indicate relative survival rates only, and illustrate the
various persistence of selected organisms.
Under experimental conditions, absorption of viruses and
E. coli through plant roots, and subsequent acropetal 3.4.1.4 Pathogens and Indicator Organisms in
translocation has been reported (Murphy and Syverton, Reclaimed Water
1958). For example, one study inoculated soil with Polio
virus, and found that the viruses were detected in the There have been a number of studies regarding the pres
leaves of plants only when the plant roots were damaged ence of pathogens and indicator organisms in reclaimed
or cut. The likelihood of translocation of pathogens water and such studies continue as experience in this
through trees or vines to the edible portions of crops is field expands. Koivunen et al. (2003) compared the re
extremely low, and the health risks are negligible. duction of fecal coliforms to the reduction of Salmonella
by conventional biological treatment, filtration, and disin
fection. Fecal coliform bacteria were present at 1000
fold greater concentration, and the Salmonella bacteria
Table 3-4. Microorganism Concentrations in were reduced to non-detectable levels by advanced treat
Raw Wastewater ment (greater than 99.9 percent). Fecal coliform bacteria
were a good, conservative indicator of such reductions.
However, given the numbers of Salmonellae in second
Range in Average Concentrations ary effluents and the fact that 18 carried multiple antibi
Organism
(CFU, PFU or Cysts/Oocysts)
otic resistance, the authors concluded that without proper
Fecal Coliforms/100L 105 to 105 additional advanced treatment, there may be a signifi
Enterococi/100L 10 4 to 10 5 cant public health risk.
Shigella /100mL 1 to 10 3
Salm onella /100mL 10 2 to 10 4 A year-long study investigated a conventional reuse treat
Helminth ova/100mL 1 to 10 3 ment facility in St. Petersburg, Florida (Rose et al., 1996).
Enteric virus/100L 1 to 5 x10 3
In this facility, deep-bed sand filtration and disinfection,
with total chlorine residual (4 to 5 mg/L) were the barriers
Giardia cysts/100L 0.39 to 4.9x10 4
assessed through both monitoring of naturally occurring
Cryptosporidium oocysts/100L 0.2 to 1.5 x10 3
bacteria, protozoa, and viruses, as well as through seeded
Source: NRC, 1998 and Maier et. al., 2000 challenge studies. Removals were 5 log for human vi
96
Table 3-6. Typical Pathogen Survival Times at 20-30 oC
Survival Time (days)

Pathogen
Fresh Water & Sewage Crops Soil
a
Viruses
Enterovirusesb <120 but usually <50 <60 but usually <15 <100 but usually <20
Bacteria
a,c
Fecal coliforms <60 but usually <30 <30 but usually <15 <70 but usually <20
a
Salmonella spp. <60 but usually <30 <30 but usually <15 <70 but usually <20
a
Shigella spp. <30 but usually <10 <10 but usually <5 ---
d
Vibrio cholerae <30 but usually <10 <5 but usually <2 <20 but usually <10
Protozoa
Entamoeba
<30 but usually <15 <10 but usually <2 <20 but usually <10
histolytica cysts
Helminths
Ascaris
Many months <60 but usually <30 Many months
lumbricoides eggs
a In seawater, viral survival is less and bacterial survival is very much less, than in
fresh water.
b Includes polio-, echo-, and coxsackieviruses
c Fecal coliform is not a pathogen but is often used as an indicator organism
d V. cholerae survival in aqueous environments is a subject of current uncertainty.
Source: Adapted from Feacham et. al., 1983
ruses and coliphage indicators, with anywhere from 1.5 0.2 to 0.5 mg/l), and effectively achieved another 90 to
to 3 log reductions by disinfection. A 3 log reduction for 99 percent reduction. Overall, the plant was able to
protozoa was achieved and greater than 1 log reduction achieve a 5 to 7 log reduction of bacteria, 5 log reduction
was achieved for bacteria and indicators. Protozoan vi of enteroviruses, 4 log reduction of Clostridium, and 3.5
ability was not evaluated. In this study, Enterococci and log reduction of protozoa. Total coliforms, enterococci,
Clostridium were not included as alternative indicators. Clostridium, coliphage, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia were
Only the phage was used as a virus indicator. Seeded detected in 4 or fewer samples of the final effluent. No
trials using bacteriophage demonstrated a 1.5 and 1.6 enteroviruses or fecal coliforms were detected. Proto
log reduction by filtration and disinfection, respectively. zoa appeared to remain the most resistant microorgan
isms found in wastewater. However, as with the St. Pe
A second study was done at the Upper Occoquan Sew tersburg study, protozoan viability in these studies was
age Authority (UOSA) in Fairfax County, Virginia. not addressed.
Samples were collected once per month for 1 year from
8 sites from the advanced wastewater reclamation plant Table 3-7 provides a summary of influent and effluent
(Rose et al., 2000). The 8 sites were monitored for indi microbiological quality for the St. Petersburg and Upper
cator bacteria, total and fecal coliforms, enterococci, Occaquan studies for enterovirus, Cryptosporidium, and
Clostridium, coliphage (viruses which infect E.coli), hu Giardia. Enteroviruses were found 100 percent of the
man enteric viruses, and enteric protozoa. Multimedia time in untreated wastewater. The enteric protozoa,
filtration reduced the bacteria by approximately 90 per Cryptosporidium, and Giardia were found from 67 to 100
cent, but did not effectively reduce the coliphage or en percent of the time in untreated wastewater. Giardia
teroviruses. The enteric protozoa were reduced by 85 to cysts were found to be more prevalent, and at higher
95.7 percent. Chemical lime treatment was the most effi- concentrations than oocysts in wastewater, perhaps due
cient barrier to the passage of microorganisms (reducing to the increased incidence of infection in populations
these microorganisms by approximately 99.99 percent compared to cryptosporidiosis and higher asymptom
for bacteria, 99.9 percent for Clostridium and enterovi atic infections. Levels of oocysts in sewage are similar
ruses, and 99 percent for protozoa). Disinfection was throughout the world (Smith and Rose, 1998). However,
achieved through chlorination (free chlorine residuals of crops irrigated with wastewater of a poorer quality in
97
Table 3-7 Pathogens in Untreated and Treated Wastewater
Untreated W astew ater Reclaim ed W ater

City Organism
% Positive Average Value % Positive Average Value
Enterovirus (PFU/100l) 100 1,033 8 0.01
St. Petersburg, FL Cryptosporidium (oocysts/100l) 67 1,456 17 0.75
Giardia (cysts/100l) 100 6,890 25 0.49
Enterovirus (PFU/100l) 100 1,100 0 0
Upper Occoquan, VA Cryptosporidium (oocysts/100l) 100 1,500 8.3 0.037
Giardia (cysts/100l) 100 49,000 17 1.1
Source: Walker-Coleman et. al., 2002; Rose and Carnahan, 1992; Sheikh and Cooper, 1998; Rose et. al., 2001; Rose and
Quintero-Betancourt, 2002; and York et. al., 2002
Israel contained more oocysts than cysts (Armon et al., science for indicator organisms. Potential indicators for
2002). further study were identified in an attempt to improve upon
current indicator organism use and requirements. The
The results of these studies indicate that the treatment results of this effort are summarized in Table 3-10. Sub
processes employed are capable of significantly reduc sequent phases of this effort will evaluate the usefulness
ing or eliminating these pathogens. of the selected list of indicators and compare them with
current indicators. Detailed studies will then be conducted
The State of Florida recognizes that Giardia and using the most promising indicators in field studies at
Cryptosporidium are pathogens of increasing importance various sites in the U.S.
to water reclamation and now requires monitoring for these
pathogens (Florida DEP, 1999). Results of this monitor 3.4.1.5 Aerosols
ing are presented in Table 3-8. The Florida facilities high
lighted in this table generally feature secondary treat Aerosols are defined as particles less than 50 µm in di
ment, filtration, and high-level disinfection. Table 3-9 in ameter that are suspended in air. Viruses and most
cludes the associated data from these facilities for TSS, pathogenic bacteria are in the respirable size range;
turbidity, and total chlorine residual. hence, the inhalation of aerosols is a possible direct mean
of human infection. Aerosols are most often a concern
Visual inspection studies in Florida and elsewhere rou where reclaimed water is applied to urban or agricultural
tinely found Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts sites with sprinkler irrigation systems, or where it is used
in reclaimed water that received filtration and high-level for cooling water make-up.
disinfection and was deemed suitable for public
access uses. A number of more detailed studies which The concentration of pathogens in aerosols is a function
considered the viability and infectivity of the cysts and of their concentration in the applied water and the aero
oocysts suggested that Giardia was likely inactivated by solization efficiency of the spray process. During spray
chlorine but 15 to 40 percent of detected Cryptosporidium irrigation, the amount of water that is aerosolized can
oocysts may survive (Keller, 2002; Sheikh, 1999; Garcia, vary from less than 0.1 percent to almost 2 percent, with
2002; Genacarro, 2003; Quintero, 2003). Other studies a mean aerosolization efficiency of 1 percent or less.
evaluating UV and the electron beam as alternatives to Infection or disease may be contracted indirectly by de
chlorine disinfection found that both parasites were eas posited aerosols on surfaces such as food, vegetation,
ily inactivated (Mofidi 2002 and Slifko 2001). Both Giar- and clothes. The infective dose of some pathogens is
dia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts required less than lower for respiratory tract infections than for infections
10mJ/cm2 for complete inactivation by UV (Mofidi 2002 via the gastrointestinal tract. Therefore, for some patho
and Slifko 2001). gens, inhalation may be a more likely route for disease
transmission than either contact or ingestion.
In December 2003, the Water Environment Research
Foundation (WERF) initiated a series of workshops on The infectivity of an inhaled aerosol depends on the depth
indicators for pathogens in wastewater, stormwater, and of the respiratory penetration and the presence of patho
biosolids. The first workshop considered the state of genic organisms capable of infecting the respiratory sys
98
Table 3-8. Summary of Florida Pathogen Monitoring Data
Statistic Giardia Cryptosporidium

Number of observations 69 68
% having detectable concentrations 58% 22%
25 percentile (#/100 l) ND ND
50 percentile (#/100 l) 4 ND
75 percentile (#/100 l) 76 ND
90 percentile (#/100 l) 333 2.3
Maximum (#/100 l) 3,096 282
Notes: (a) All numeric data are total numbers of cysts or oocysts per 100 L.
(b) ND indicates a value less than detection.
Source: Walker-Coleman, et. al., 2002.
Table 3-9. Operational Data for Florida Facilities
Statistic TSS (mg/l) Turbidity (NTU) Chlorine Residual (mg/l)

Minimum 0.19 0.31 1.01
10 percentile 0.4 0.45 1.9
25 percentile 0.8 0.65 2.32
50 percentile 1 0.99 4.1
75 percentile 1.76 1.36 5
90 percentile 2.1 1.8 7.1
Maximum 6 4.5 10.67
Source: Walker-Coleman et. al., 2002
tem. Aerosols in the 2 to 5 µm size range are generally mean concentration of enteroviruses recovered 150 to
excluded from the respiratory tract, with some that are 200 feet (44 to 60 meters) downwind was 0.05 pfu/m3, a
subsequently swallowed. Thus, if gastrointestinal patho level higher than that observed at other wastewater aero
gens are present, infection could result. A considerably sol sites in the U.S. and in Israel (Camann et al., 1988).
greater potential for infection occurs when respiratory While disease surveillance found no obvious connection
pathogens are inhaled in aerosols smaller than 2 µm in between the self-reporting of acute illness and the de
size, which pass directly to the alveoli of the lungs (Sorber gree of aerosol exposure, serological testing of blood
and Guter, 1975). samples indicated that the rate of viral infections was
slightly higher among members of the study population
One of the most comprehensive aerosol studies, the Lub who had a high degree of aerosol exposure (Camann et
bock Infection Surveillance Study (Camann et al., 1986), al., 1986).
monitored viral and bacterial infections in a mostly rural
community surrounding a spray injection site near Wil For intermittent spraying of disinfected reclaimed water,
son, Texas. The source of the irrigation water was occasional inadvertent contact should pose little health
undisinfected trickling filter effluent from the Lubbock hazard from inhalation. Cooling towers issue aerosols
Southeast water reclamation plant. Spray irrigation of continuously, and may present a greater concern if the
the wastewater significantly elevated air densities of water is not properly disinfected. Although a great deal
fecal coliforms, fecal streptococci, mycobacteria, and of effort has been expended to quantify the numbers of
coliphage above the ambient background levels for at fecal coliforms and enteric pathogens in cooling tower
least 650 feet (200 meters) downwind. The geometric waters, there is no evidence that they occur in large num
99
Table 3-10 Some Suggested Alternative Indicators for Use in Monitoring Programs
Param e te r Pathoge n Pre s e nce

F+ RNA coliphages
Somatic coliphages
Viruses
Adenovirus
JC virus
E. coli
Bacteria Enterococci
Bifidob acteria
Clostridium perfringens
Parasites Sulfite reducing
Clostridium spp.
Non-microbial indicators Fecal sterols
Cryptosporidium
Pathogens as possible indicators
Giardia
Source: WERF Workshop, 2003
bers, although the numbers of other bacteria may be quite Not spraying when wind is blowing toward sensitive
large (Adams and Lewis, n.d.). areas subject to aerosol drift or windblown spray
No documented disease outbreaks have resulted from Irrigating at off-hours, when the public or employees
the spray irrigation of disinfected, reclaimed water. Stud would not be in areas subject to aerosols or spray
ies indicate that the health risk associated with aero
sols from spray irrigation sites using reclaimed water is All these steps would be considered part of a best man
low (U.S. EPA, 1980b). However, until more sensitive agement plan for irrigation systems regardless of the
and definitive studies are conducted to fully evaluate the source of water used.
ability of pathogens contained in aerosols to cause dis
ease, the general practice is to limit exposure to aero Most states with reuse regulations or guidelines include
sols produced from reclaimed water that is not highly setback distances from spray areas to property lines,
disinfected. Exposure is limited through design or op buildings, and public access areas. Although predictive
erational controls. Design features include: models have been developed to estimate microorgan
ism concentrations in aerosols or larger water droplets
Setback distances, which are sometimes called buffer resulting from spray irrigation, setback distances are
zones determined by regulatory agencies in a somewhat arbi
trary manner, using levels of disinfection, experience,
Windbreaks, such as trees or walls around irrigated and engineering judgment as the basis.
areas
3.4.1.6 Infectious Disease Incidence Related to
Low pressure irrigation systems and/or spray nozzles Wastewater Reuse
with large orifices to reduce the formation of fine
mist Epidemiological investigations have focused on waste-
water-contaminated drinking water supplies, the use of
Low-profile sprinklers raw or minimally-treated wastewater for food crop irri
gation, health effects to farm workers who routinely con
Surface or subsurface methods of irrigation tact poorly treated wastewater used for irrigation, and
the health effects of aerosols or windblown spray ema
Operational measures include: nating from spray irrigation sites using undisinfected
wastewater. These investigations have all provided evi
Spraying only during periods of low wind velocity dence of infectious disease transmission from such prac
100
tices (Lund, 1980; Feachem et al., 1983; Shuval et al., framework does not explicitly acknowledge the differences
1986). between health effects due to chemical exposure versus
those due to microbial exposure. Those differences in
Review of the scientific literature, excluding the use of clude acute versus chronic health effects, potential for
raw sewage or primary effluent on sewage farms in the person-to-person transmission of disease, and the po
late 19th century, does not indicate that there have been tential need to account for the epidemiological status of
no confirmed cases of infectious disease resulting from the population (Olivieri, 2002).
reclaimed water use in the U.S. where such use has
been in compliance with all appropriate regulatory con Microbial risk analyses require several assumptions to
trols. However, in developing countries, the irrigation of be made. These assumptions include a minimum infec
market crops with poorly treated wastewater is a major tive dose of selected pathogens, concentration of patho
source of enteric disease (Shuval et al., 1986). gens present, quantity of pathogens ingested, inhaled,
or otherwise contacted by humans, and probability of
Occurrences of low level or endemic waterborne diseases infection based on infectivity models. The use of micro
associated with exposure to reclaimed water have been bial risk assessment models have been used extensively
difficult to ascertain for several reasons: by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to evalu
ate food safety for pathogens such as Listeria
Current detection methods have not been sufficiently Monocytogenes in ready to eat foods (USDA, n.d.). The
sensitive or specific enough to accurately detect low World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agricul
concentrations of pathogens, such as viruses and ture Organization (FAO) also provide risk assessment
protozoa, even in large volumes of water. methodologies for use in evaluating food safety (Codex
Alimentarius).
Many infections are often not apparent, or go unre
ported, thus making it difficult to establish the ende In order to assess health risks associated with the use
micity of such infections. of reclaimed water, pathogen risk assessment models to
assess health risks associated with the use of reclaimed
The apparently mild nature of many infections pre water have been used as a tool in assessing relative health
clude reporting by the patient or the physician. risks from microorganisms in drinking water (Cooper et
al., 1986; Gerba and Haas, 1988; Olivieri et al., 1986;
Current epidemiological techniques are not sufficiently Regli et al., 1991; Rose et al., 1991; Gale, 2002) and
sensitive to detect low-level transmission of these reclaimed water (Asano and Sakaji, 1990; EOA, Inc.,
diseases through water. 1995; Rose and Gerba, 1991; Tanaka et al., 1998;
Patterson et al., 2001). Most of the models calculated
Illness due to enteroviral or parasite infections may the probability of individual infection or disease as a re
not become obvious for several months or years. sult of a single exposure. One of the more sophisticated
models calculates a distribution of risk over the popula
Once introduced into a population, person-to-person tion by utilizing epidemiological data such as incubation
contact can become a secondary mode of transmis period, immune status, duration of disease, rate of symp
sion of many pathogens, thereby obscuring the role tomatic development, and exposure data such as pro
of water in its transmission. cesses affecting pathogen concentration (EOA, Inc.,
1995).
Because of the insensitivity of epidemiological studies to
provide a direct empirical assessment of microbial health At the present time, no wastewater disinfection or re
risk due to low-level exposure to pathogens, methodolo claimed water standards or guidelines in the U.S. are
gies have increasingly relied on indirect measures of risk based on risk assessment using microorganism infec
by using analytical models for estimation of the intensity tivity models. Florida is investigating such an approach
of human exposure and the probability of human response and has suggested levels of viruses between 0.04 to 14/
from the exposure. Microbial risk assessment involves 100 l, depending on the virus (ranging from Rotavirus
evaluating the likelihood that an adverse health effect may infectivity to a less infectious virus), viable oocysts at 22/
occur from human exposure to one or more potential 100 l, and viable cysts at 5/100 l (York and Walker-
pathogens. Most microbial risk assessments in the past Coleman, 1999). Microbial risk assessment methodol
have used a framework originally developed for chemi ogy is a useful tool in assessing relative health risks
cals that is defined by 4 major steps: (1) hazard identifi associated with water reuse. Risk assessment will un
cation, (2) dose-response identification, (3) exposure doubtedly play a role in future criteria development as
assessment, and (4) risk characterization. However, this epidemiological-based models are improved and refined.
101
3.4.1.7 Chemical Constituents b. Organics
The chemical constituents potentially present in munici The organic make-up of raw wastewater includes natu
pal wastewater are a major concern when reclaimed rally occurring humic substances, fecal matter, kitchen
water is used for potable reuse. These constituents may wastes, liquid detergents, oils, grease, and other sub
also affect the acceptability of reclaimed water for other stances that, in one way or another, become part of the
uses, such as food crop irrigation or aquaculture. Po sewage stream. Industrial and residential wastes may
tential mechanisms of food crop contamination include: contribute significant quantities of synthetic organic com
pounds.
Physical contamination, where evaporation and re
peated applications may result in a buildup of con The need to remove organic constituents is related to
taminants on crops the end use of reclaimed water. Some of the adverse
effects associated with organic substances include:
Uptake through the roots from the applied water or
the soil, although available data indicate that poten Aesthetic effects – organics may be malodorous and
tially toxic organic pollutants do not enter edible por impart color to the water
tions of plants that are irrigated with treated munici
pal wastewater (National Research Council, 1996) Clogging – particulate matter may clog sprinkler heads
or accumulate in soil and affect permeability
Foliar uptake
Proliferation of microorganisms – organics provide
With the exception of the possible inhalation of volatile food for microorganisms
organic compounds (VOCs) from indoor exposure, chemi
cal concerns are less important where reclaimed water Oxygen consumption – upon decomposition, organic
is not to be consumed. Chemical constituents are a con substances deplete the dissolved oxygen content
sideration when reclaimed water percolates into ground in streams and lakes. This negatively impacts the
water as a result of irrigation, groundwater recharge, or aquatic life that depends on the oxygen supply for
other uses. These practices are covered in Chapter 2. survival
Some of the inorganic and organic constituents in re
claimed water are listed in Table 3-11. Use limitation – many industrial applications cannot
tolerate water that is high in organic content
a. Inorganics
Disinfection effects – organic matter can interfere
In general, the health hazards associated with the inges with chlorine, ozone, and ultraviolet disinfection,
tion of inorganic constituents, either directly or through thereby making them less available for disinfection
food, are well established (U.S. EPA, 1976). EPA has purposes. Further, chlorination may result in forma
set maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking tion of potentially harmful disinfection byproducts
water. The concentrations of inorganic constituents in
reclaimed water depend mainly on the source of waste Health effects – ingestion of water containing certain
water and the degree of treatment. Residential use of organic compounds may result in acute or chronic
water typically adds about 300 mg/l of dissolved inor health effects.
ganic solids, although the amount added can range from
approximately 150 mg/l to more than 500 mg/l (Metcalf The wide range of anthropogenic organic contaminants
& Eddy, 2002). As indicated in Table 3-11 the presence in streams influenced by urbanization (including waste
of total dissolved solids, nitrogen, phosphorus, heavy water contamination) includes pharmaceuticals, hor
metals, and other inorganic constituents may affect the mones, antioxidants, plasticizers, solvents, polynuclear
acceptability of reclaimed water for different reuse appli aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), detergents, pesticides,
cations. Wastewater treatment using existing technol and their metabolites (Kolpin et al., 2002). The stability
ogy can generally reduce many trace elements to below and persistence of these compounds are extremely vari
recommended maximum levels for irrigation and drinking able in the stream/sediment environment. A recent com
water. Uses in wetlands and recreational surface waters prehensive study of the persistence of anthropogenic and
must also consider aquatic life protection and wetland natural organic molecules during groundwater recharge
habitat. suggests that carbamezepine may survive long enough
to serve as a useful tracer compound of wastewater ori
gin (Clara et al., 2004).
102
Table 3-11. Inorganic and Organic Constituents of Concern in Water Reclamation and Reuse
M e as ure d
Cons titue nt Re as ons for Conce r n
Param e te rs
Suspended Solids Suspended solids (SS), Organic contaminants, heavy metals, etc. are
including volatile and absorbed on particulates. Suspended matter
fixed solids can shield microorganisms from disinfectants.
Excessive amounts of suspended solids cause
plugging in irrigation systems.
Biodegradable Biochemical oxygen demand, Aesthetic and nuisance problems. Organics
Organics chemical oxygen demand, provide food for microorganisms, adversely
total organic carbon affect disinfection processes, make water
unsuitable for some industrial or other uses,
consume oxygen, and may result in acute or
chronic effects if reclaimed water is u
Nutrients Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are

Potassium essential nutrients for plant growth and their
presence normally enhances the value of the
water for irrigation. When discharged to the
aquatic environment, nitrogen and phosphorus
can lead to the growth of undesir
Stable Organics Specific compounds Some of these organics tend to resist

(e.g., pesticides, chlorinated conventional methods of wastewater treatment.
hydrocarbons) Some organic compounds are toxic in the
environment, and their presence may limit the
suitability of reclaimed water for irrigation or
other uses. Chlorine reacts with man
Hydrogen Ion pH The pH of wastewater affects disinfection,

Concentration coagulation, metal solubility, as well as alkalinity
of soils. Normal range in municipal wastewater
is pH = 6.5 - 8.5, but industrial waste can alter
pH significantly.
Heavy Metals Specific elements (e.g., Some heavy metals accumulate in the
Cd, Zn, Ni, and Hg) environment and are toxic to plants and animals.
Their presence may limit the suitability of the
reclaimed water for irrigation or other uses.
Dissolved Total dissolved solids, electrical Excessive salinity may damage some crops.
Inorganics Conductivity, specific elements Specific inorganics electrical conductivity ions
(e.g., Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, and B) such as chloride, sodium, and boron are toxic to
specific elements (e.g., in some crops, sodium
may pose soil permeability Na, Ca, Mg, Cl, and
B problems).
Residual Chlorine Free and combined chlorine Excessive amounts of free available chlorine
(>0.05 Chlorine chlorine mg/l) may cause leaf-tip
burn and damage some sensitive crops.
However, most chlorine in reclaimed water is in
a combined form, which does not cause crop
damage. Some concerns are expre
Source: Adapted from Pettygrove and Asano, 1985
103
The health effects resulting from organic constituents highly treated reclaimed water for potable purposes are
are of primary concern for indirect or direct potable re greater than those from using existing water supplies
use. In addition, these constituents may be of concern (National Research Council, 1994). Yet, unanswered ques
where reclaimed water is utilized for food crop irriga tions remain about organic constituents, due mainly to
tion, where reclaimed water from irrigation or other ben their potentially large numbers and unresolved health risk
eficial uses reaches potable groundwater supplies, or potentials related to long-term, low-level exposure. As
where the organics may bioaccumulate in the food chain sessment of health risks associated with potable reuse
(e.g., in fish-rearing ponds). is not definitive due to limited chemical and toxicological
data and inherent limitations in available epidemiological
Traditional measures of organic matter such as BOD, and toxicological methods. The results of epidemiologi
chemical oxygen demand (COD), and total organic car cal studies directed at drinking water have generally been
bon (TOC), are widely used as indicators of treatment inconclusive, and extrapolation methodologies used in
efficiency and water quality for many nonpotable uses of toxicological assessments provide uncertainties in over
reclaimed water. However, these measures have only all risk characterization (National Research Council, 1998).
indirect relevance related to evaluating toxicity and health
effects. Sophisticated analytical instrumentation makes 3.4.1.8 Endocrine Disrupters
it possible to identify and quantify extremely low levels
of organic constituents in water. Examples include gas In addition to the potential adverse effects of chemicals
chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (GC/MS/ described in Section 3.4.1.6, certain chemical constitu
MS) or high performance liquid chromatography/mass ents present in wastewater also can disrupt hormonal
spectrometry (HPLC/MS). These analyses are costly and systems. This phenomenon, which is referred to as en
may require extensive and difficult sample preparation, docrine disruption, can occur through a variety of mecha
particularly for nonvolatile organics. nisms associated with hormone synthesis, hormone
receptor binding, and hormone transformation. As a re
Organic compounds in wastewater can be transformed sult of the many mechanisms through which chemicals
into chlorinated organic species where chlorine is used can impact hormone function, a large number of chemi
for disinfection purposes. In the past, most attention was cals are classified as endocrine disrupters. However,
focused on the trihalomethane (THM) compounds; a fam the exact types of chemicals that are classified as en
ily of organic compounds typically occurring as chlorine docrine disrupters vary among researchers. Table 3-12
or bromine-substituted forms of methane. Chloroform, a highlights a number of example sources of potential
commonly found THM compound, has been implicated endocrine disrupters.
in the development of cancer of the liver and kidney.
Improved analytical capabilities to detect extremely low For example, the oxyanion, perchlorate, is an endocrine
levels of chemical constituents in water have resulted in disrupter because it affects the thyroid system (U.S. EPA,
identification of several health-significant chemicals and 2002). The herbicide, atrazine, is an endocrine disrupter
disinfection byproducts in recent years. For example, the because it affects an enzyme responsible for hormone
extremely potent carcinogen, N-nitrosodimethylamine regulation (Hayes et al. 2002). A USGS project recently
(NDMA) is present in sewage and is produced when mu sampled 139 streams in 30 states for any 1 of 95 endo
nicipal wastewater effluent is disinfected with chlorine or crine disrupters. The results indicated that 80 percent of
chloramines (Mitch et al, 2003). In some situations, the the streams had at least 1 of these compounds (McGovern
concentration of NDMA present in reclaimed water ex and McDonald, 2003). The topic of endocrine disruption
ceeds action levels set for the protection of human health, has significant implications for a wide variety of chemi
even after reverse osmosis treatment. To address con cals used by industry, agriculture, and consumers. As a
cerns associated with NDMA and other trace organics in result, the EPA, the European Union (EU), and other gov
reclaimed water, several utilities in California have in ernment organizations are currently evaluating ap
stalled UV/H2O2 treatment systems for treatment of re proaches for regulating endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
verse osmosis permeate.
With respect to water reuse, the greatest concerns as
Quality standards have been established for many inor sociated with endocrine disruption are related to a series
ganic constituents. Treatment and analytical technology of field and laboratory studies demonstrating that chemi
has demonstrated the capability to identify, quantify, and cals in wastewater effluent caused male fish to exhibit
control these substances. Similarly, available technol female characteristics (Purdom et al., 1994; Harries et
ogy is capable of eliminating pathogenic agents from al., 1996; Harries et al., 1997). This process, which is
contaminated waters. On the basis of available informa referred to as feminization, has been attributed mostly to
tion, there is no indication that health risks from using the presence of steroid hormones excreted by humans
104
(Desbrow et al., 1998 and Snyder et al., 2001). The hor trometry (GC/MS/MS) (Ternes et al., 1999, Huang and
mones involved in fish feminization include the endog Sedlak, 2001), high performance liquid chromatography/
enous (i.e., produced within the body) hormone 17b-es- mass spectrometry (HPLC/MS) (Ferguson et al., 2001),
tradiol as well as hormones present in pharmaceuticals or immunoassays (Huang and Sedlak, 2001 and Snyder
(e.g., ethinyl estradiol in birth control pills). Other chemi et al., 2001) are needed to detect the low concentrations
cals capable of feminizing fish are also present in waste present in wastewater effluent (e.g., ethinyl estradiol
water. These include nonylphenol and alkylphenol concentrations are typically less than 2 υg/l in wastewa
polyethoxylates, both of which are metabolites of non ter effluent). Although the endocrine-disrupting detergent
ionic detergents formed during secondary wastewater metabolites are present at much higher concentrations
treatment (Ahel et al., 1994). than the hormones, their analysis also requires special
ized analytical methods (Ahel et al., 1994) not available
The specific endocrine-disrupting chemicals in reclaimed from many commercial laboratories.
water can be quantified using modern analytical meth
ods. As indicated previously, the compounds most likely Bioassays can also be used to quantify the potential of
to be responsible for feminization of fish include steroid reclaimed water to cause endocrine disruption. These
hormones (e.g., 17b-estradiol and ethinyl estradiol) and methods are attractive because they have the potential
detergents metabolites (e.g., nonylphenol and alkylphenol to detect all of the difficult-to-measure endocrine-disrupt-
polyethoxylates). Although these compounds cannot be ing chemicals in 1 assay. The simplest bioassays in
quantified at the levels expected in reclaimed water with volve in vitro tests, in which a hormone receptor from a
the gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) mammalian cell is used to detect endocrine-disrupting
techniques routinely used to quantify priority pollutants, chemicals. Among the different in vitro assays, the Yeast
they can be measured with equipment available in many Estrogen Screen (YES) assay has been employed most
modern laboratories. For the hormones, analytical meth frequently (Desbrow et al., 1998). Comparisons between
ods such as gas chromatography/tandem mass spec in vitro bioassays and chemical measurements yield
Table 3-12. Examples of the Types and Sources of Substances that have been Reported as Potential
Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals
Category Examples of Substances Examples of Uses Examples of Sources

Polychlorinated polychlorinated dioxins and industrial production of incineration and landfill
Compounds polychlorinated biphenyls byproducts (mostly banned) runoff
Organochlorine Pesticides DDT, dieldrin, and lindane insecticides (many phased agricultural runoff
out)
Current Use Pesticides atrazine, trifluralin, and pesticides agricultural runoff
permethrin
Organotins tributyltin antifoulants on ships harbors
Alkylphenolics nonylphenol and surfactants (and their industrial and municipal

octylphenol metabolites) effluents
Phthalates dibutyl phthalate and plasticisers industrial effluent

butylbenzyl phthalate
Sex Hormones 17-beta estradiol and produced naturally by municipal effluents
estrone animals
Synthetic Steroids ethinylestradiol contraceptives municipal effluents
Phytoestrogens isoflavones, lignans, present in plant material pulp mill effluents

coumestans
Source: Adapted from McGovern and McDonald, 2003 and Berkett and Lester, 2003
105
consistent results, indicating that steroid hormones are 3.4.2 Treatment Requirements
the most significant endocrine disrupting chemicals in
wastewater effluent. Unfortunately, in vitro bioassays do Untreated municipal wastewater may include contribu
not always detect compounds that disrupt hormone sys tions from domestic and industrial sources, infiltration
tems through mechanisms other than binding to hormone and inflow from the collection system, and, in the case
receptors. As a result, in vivo bioassays, usually per of combined sewer systems, urban stormwater runoff.
formed with fish, may provide more accurate results. A The quantity and quality of wastewater derived from each
clear dose-related response to various endocrine-disrupt- source will vary among communities, depending on the
ing compounds has been established in fish; however, number and type of commercial and industrial estab
little is known about species differences in sensitivity to lishments in the area and the condition of the sewer sys
exposure. Individual responses to exposure may also tem.
vary widely (Routledge et al., 1998). Because many labo
ratories are unable to perform in vivo bioassays under Levels of wastewater treatment are generally classified
the necessary conditions (e.g., flow-through tests with as preliminary, primary, secondary, and advanced. Ad
rainbow trout), in vivo bioassays are not always practi vanced wastewater treatment, sometimes referred to as
cal. Available data suggest that nitrification/denitrifica- tertiary treatment, is generally defined as anything be
tion and filtration can reduce the concentrations of hor yond secondary treatment. A generalized flow sheet for
mones and detergent metabolites while reverse osmosis municipal wastewater treatment is shown in Figure 3-
lowers concentrations to levels that are unlikely to cause 10.
endocrine disruption (Huang and Sedlak, 2001 and Fujita
et al., 1996). In the last decade, significant advances were made in
wastewater treatment equipment, design, and technol
The current focus of research on disruption of the estro ogy. For example, biological nutrient removal (BNR)
gen system may be attributable to the relative ease of processes have become more refined. Membranes are
detecting this form of endocrine disruption. As additional capable of producing higher quality effluent at higher flux
research is performed, other chemicals in wastewater rates and lower pressures than was possible before.
effluent may be found to disrupt hormonal systems Membrane bioreactors (MBRs) have shown to be effec
through mechanisms yet to be documented. For example, tive in producing a high quality effluent, while greatly re
although results from in vitro bioassays suggest that the ducing a treatment plant’s footprint. Microfiltration, used
steroid hormones are most likely responsible for femini in some locations to replace conventional media filtra
zation of fish, it is possible that other endocrine disrupt tion, has the advantage of effectively removing all para
ers contribute to the effect through mechanisms that can site cysts (e.g., Giardia and Cryptosporidium). Advances
not be detected by the bioassays. in UV radiation technology have resulted in a cost com
petitive disinfection process capable of reducing the con
The ecological implications associated with the femini centration of most pathogens to extremely low levels.
zation of fish are unknown. The potential of reclaimed
water to cause endocrine disruption in humans is also Wastewater treatment from raw to secondary is well un
unknown. It is anticipated that problems associated with derstood and covered in great detail in other publications
endocrine disruption could occur, given prolonged con such as the Manual of Practice (MOP) 8, Design of Mu-
sumption of substantial volumes of polluted water. The nicipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, 4th Edition, (WEF,
compounds in wastewater effluent that are believed to 1998). In this edition of the Guidelines for Water Reuse
be responsible for feminization of fish may not pose a the discussion about treatment processes will be limited
serious risk for humans because of differences between to those with a particular application to water reuse and
human and fish physiology. For example, the hormone reclamation. Such processes generally consist of disin
17b-estradiol is not used in the oral form in clinical ap fection and treatment beyond secondary treatment, al
plications because it would be metabolized before it though some limited access reuse programs may use
could reach its target. Nevertheless, the evidence of secondary effluent without concern. It should be pointed
endocrine disruption in wildlife and the absence of data out that treatment for particular pollutants at the water
about the effects of low-level exposure to endocrine dis reclamation facility is not always the best answer. Source
rupting compounds in humans has led to new scrutiny controls should also be investigated. In Orange County,
regarding endocrine-disrupting chemicals in reclaimed California, 1,4-dioxane (listed as a probable human car
water. cinogen based on animal studies) was found in 9 produc
tion wells at levels greater than the California action lev
els. This problem was solved by working with a treat
ment plant customer who voluntarily ceased discharge
106
of 1,4-dioxane to the sewer system (Woodside and nant advantages and disadvantages of disinfection al
Wehner, 2002). ternatives are well known and have been summarized by
the EPA in their Wastewater Technology Fact Sheets on
3.4.2.1 Disinfection Ultraviolet Disinfection (September 1999), Ozone Disin
fection (September 1999), and Chlorine Disinfection (Sep
The most important process for the destruction of micro tember 1999), Design Manual entitled, “Municipal Waste
organisms is disinfection. In the U.S., the most common water Disinfection” and Water Environment Federation
disinfectant for both water and wastewater is chlorine. (WEF) Manual of Practice FD-10 (1996).
Ozone and UV light are other prominent disinfectants
used at wastewater treatment plants. Factors that should The efficiency of chlorine disinfection depends on the
be considered when evaluating disinfection alternatives water temperature, pH, degree of mixing, time of con
include disinfection effectiveness and reliability, capital tact, presence of interfering substances, concentration
costs, operating and maintenance costs, practicality and form of chlorinating species, and the nature and con
(e.g., ease of transport and storage or onsite generation, centration of the organisms to be destroyed. In general,
ease of application and control, flexibility, complexity, bacteria are less resistant to chlorine than viruses, which
and safety), and potential adverse effects. Examples of in turn, are less resistant than parasite ova and cysts.
adverse effects include toxicity to aquatic life or forma
tion of toxic or carcinogenic substances. The predomi
Figure 3-10. Generalized Flow Sheet for Wastewater Treatment
Preliminary Primary Secondary Advanced
Effluent for� Effluent for� Effluent for�

Subsequent Use Subsequent Use Subsequent Use
Low-Rate Processes Disinfection/�

Disinfection/� Pathogen Disinfection/�
Pathogen Stabilization Ponds� Pathogen
Aerated Lagoons� Removal
Removal Removal
Wetlands� Chlorine�
Chlorine� UV Chlorine�
UV Overland Flow� UV
Soil-Aquifer
Treatment (SAT)
Nitrogen Removal
Screening� High-Rate Selective Ion Exchange�
Comminution� Sedimentation Overland Flow�
Grit removal Suspended Growth
(SG)� Biological Nutrient Removal
• Activated Sludge� (BNR)
• Membrane �
� Bioreactor (MBR)�
Attached Growth (AG)�
Fats, Oils,� Chemically • Trickling Filter (TF)� Phosphorus Removal
and Grease� Enhanced� • Biological Aerated �
Removal Pretreatment� Chemical Precipitation�
� Filter (BAF)� Biological
(CEPT) • Upflow Anaerobic �
� Sludge Blanket �
� (UASB)�
• Rotating Biological � Suspended Solids Removal
Contactor (RBC) �
Mixed Growth (MG)� • Chemical Coagulation�
• Integrated Fixed-� � Filtration�
� Film Activated � • Low-Pressure ��
� Sludge (IFAS)� � Membranes–Ultrafiltration �
• MBR� � (UF) and Microfiltration (MF)�
• Trickling Filter/� • Nanofiltration (NF) and �
� Secondary � � Reverse Osmosis (RO) �
� Clarification � � Membranes�
� (TF/SC) • Advanced Oxidation ��
� Processes
Sludge Processing Secondary� Organics & Metals Removal

Sedimentation
Carbon Adsorption�
Chemical Precipitation
Disposal
Dissolved Solids Removal

Reverse Osmosis�
Electrodialysis�
Source: Adapted from Pettygrove and Asano, 1985 Distillation�
Ion Exchange�
Nanofiltration
107
The chlorine dosage required to disinfect wastewater to by the cellular nucleic acids. This can prevent replica
any desired level is greatly influenced by the constitu tion by eliminating the organism’s ability to cause infec
ents present in the wastewater. Some of the interfering tion. UV radiation is frequently used for wastewater treat
substances are: ment plants that discharge to surface waters to avoid
the need for dechlorination prior to release of the efflu
Organic constituents, which consume the disinfec ent. UV is receiving increasing attention as a means of
tant disinfecting reclaimed water for the following reasons:
(1) UV may be less expensive than disinfecting with chlo-
Particulate matter, which protects microorganisms rine, (2) UV is safer to use than chlorine gas, (3) UV
from the action of the disinfectant does not result in the formation of chlorinated hydrocar
bons, and (4) UV is effective against Cryptosporidium
Ammonia, which reacts with chlorine to form chloram and Giardia, while chlorine is not.
ines, a much less effective disinfectant species than
free chlorine The effectiveness of UV radiation as a disinfectant (where
fecal coliform limits are on the order of 200/100 ml) has
In practice, the amount of chlorine added is determined been well established, and is used at small- to medium-
empirically, based on desired residual and effluent qual sized wastewater treatment plants throughout the U.S.
ity. Chlorine, which in low concentrations is toxic to many Today, UV radiation to achieve high-level disinfection for
aquatic organisms, is easily controlled in reclaimed wa reuse operations is acceptable in some states. In recog
ter by dechlorination, typically with sulfur dioxide. nition of the possible harmful effects of chlorine, the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
Chlorine is a regulated substance with a threshold quan encourages the use of alternative disinfection methods
tity of 2,500 pounds (1130 kg). If a chlorine system con (FDEP, 1996). The WERF published a final report en
tains a larger quantity of chlorine than the threshold titled, “Disinfection Comparison of UV Irradiation to Chlo
quantity, a Risk Management Plan (RMP) must be com rination: Guidance for Achieving Optimal UV Perfor
pleted. Two main factors of the RMP that prompt many mance.” This report provides a broad-based discussion
municipalities to switch to alternative disinfection sys of the advantages and disadvantages of chlorine and UV,
tems are: (1) the RMP is not a one-time requirement, it using an empirical model to determine the UV dose re
has to be updated every 5 years; and (2) concern over quired for various levels of coliform inactivation. The re
public reaction to the RMP, which requires that a “kill port also includes cost information and a comparison of
zone” be geographically defined around the treatment chlorination/dechlorination and UV systems (WERF,
facility. This “kill zone” may include residential areas near 1995). Studies in San Francisco, California, indicated that
the treatment plant. Thus, RMP requirements and de suspended solids play a major role in UV efficiency. This
creasing chemical costs for commercial grade sodium included the finding that, as the concentration of par
hypochlorite have resulted in many municipalities switch ticles 7 mm and larger increase, the ability to achieve
ing from chlorine gas to commercial grade sodium hy acceptable disinfection with UV decreases. Thus, filtra
pochlorite to provide disinfection of their wastewater. tion must be optimized to manage this problem (Jolis et
al., 1996).
Ozone (O3), is a powerful disinfecting agent and chemi
cal oxidant in both inorganic and organic reactions. Due The goal of UV disinfection in reuse applications typi
to the instability of ozone, it must be generated onsite cally is to inactivate 99.999 percent or more of the tar
from air or oxygen carrier gas. Ozone destroys bacteria get pathogens (Swift et al., 2002). The 2000 National
and viruses by means of rapid oxidation of the protein Water Research Institute (NWRI) guidelines provide
mass, and disinfection is achieved in a matter of min detailed guidance for the design of UV systems that will
utes. Ozone is a highly effective disinfectant for advanced achieve high-level disinfection to meet some state stan
wastewater treatment plant effluent, removing color, and dards for public access reuse. The 2000 NWRI guide
contributing dissolved oxygen. Some disadvantages to lines also include a well-defined testing protocol and vali
using ozone for disinfection are: (1) the use of ozone is dation test as a means to provide reasonable assurance
relatively expensive and energy intensive, (2) ozone sys that the domestic wastewater treatment facility can meet
tems are more complex to operate and maintain than the high-level disinfection criteria (NWRI and AWWA,
chlorine systems, and (3) ozone does not maintain a re 2000).
sidual in water.
The Bethune Point WWTP in Daytona Beach, Florida, is
UV is a physical disinfecting agent. Radiation at a wave the largest UV disinfection system in the state of Florida
length of 254 mm penetrates the cell wall and is absorbed designed for reuse operations. This facility is also the
108
first public access reuse facility in Florida with UV disin of removing the constituents of concern are shown in
fection to be permitted for unrestricted public access Figure 3-11.
(Elefritz, 2002). Placed into service in December 1999,
the Bethune Point WWTP UV disinfection system is a The principal advanced wastewater treatment processes
medium pressure/high intensity system designed for a for water reclamation are:
dose of 80mW-s/cm2 (800 J/m2) to achieve the high-level
disinfection standard. The City of Henderson, Nevada Filtration – Filtration is a common treatment pro
water reclamation facility conducted collimated beam cess used to remove particulate matter prior to dis
studies of a low pressure/high intensity UV disinfection infection. Filtration involves the passing of waste
system. The studies demonstrated that the disinfection water through a bed of granular media or filter cloth,
goal of 20 fecal coliforms per 100 ml was achievable which retain the solids. Typical media include sand,
with a minimum UV dose of 200 J/m2 (Smith and Brown, anthracite, and garnet. Removal efficiencies can be
2002). improved through the addition of certain polymers
and coagulants.
Other disinfectants, such as onsite chlorine generation,
gamma radiation, bromine, iodine, and hydrogen perox UV Treatment of NDMA – UV Treatment, consid
ide, have been considered for the disinfection of waste ered an Advanced Oxidation Technology (AOT), is
water. These disinfectants are not generally used be the only proven treatment to effectively reduce
cause of economical, technical, operational, or disinfec NDMA. The adsorption of ultraviolet light, even the
tion efficiency considerations. UV portion of sunlight, by NDMA causes the mol
ecule to disassociate into harmless fragments (Nagel
3.4.2.2 Advanced Wastewater Treatment et al., 2001). A study done at West Basin Municipal
Water District in Carson, California proved NDMA
Advanced wastewater treatment processes are those concentrations were reduced by both low and me
beyond traditional secondary treatment. These processes dium pressure UV (Nagel et al., 2001).
are generally used when high quality reclaimed water is
needed. Examples include: (1) urban landscaping, (2) food Nitrification – Nitrification is the term generally given
crops eaten raw, (3) contact recreation, and (4) many to any wastewater treatment process that biologi
industrial applications. Individual unit processes capable cally converts ammonia nitrogen sequentially to ni-
Figure 3-11. Particle Size Separation Comparison Chart
Adapted from AWWA, 1990
109
trite nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen. Nitrification does of less than 0.1 mg/l, while biological phosphorus
not remove significant amounts of nitrogen from the removal will usually produce an effluent phosphorus
effluent; it only converts nitrogen into another chemi concentration between 1.0 and 2.0 mg/l.
cal form. Nitrification can be achieved in many sus
pended and attached growth treatment processes Coagulation-Sedimentation – Chemical coagulation
when the processes are designed to foster the growth with lime, alum, or ferric chloride followed by sedi
of nitrifying bacteria. In the traditional activated sludge mentation removes SS, heavy metals, trace sub
process, this is accomplished by designing the pro stances, phosphorus, and turbidity.
cess to operate at a solids retention time (SRT) that
is long enough to prevent slow-growing nitrifying bac Carbon Adsorption – One effective advanced waste
teria from being wasted out of the system. Nitrifica water treatment process for removing biodegradable
tion will also occur in trickling filters that operate at and refractory organic constituents is granular acti
low BOD/TKN ratios either in combination with BOD vated carbon (GAC). Carbon adsorption can reduce
removal, or as a separate advanced treatment pro the levels of synthetic organic chemicals in second
cess following any type of secondary treatment. A ary effluent by 75 to 85 percent. The basic mecha
well-designed and -operated nitrification process will nism of removal is by adsorption of the organic com
produce an effluent containing 1.0 mg/l or less of pounds onto the carbon. Carbon adsorption proceeded
ammonia nitrogen. by conventional secondary treatment and filtration
can produce an effluent with a BOD of 0.1 to 5.0 mg/
Denitrification – Denitrification is any wastewater treat l, a COD of 3 to 25 mg/l, and a TOC of 1 to 6 mg/l.
ment method that completely removes total nitro Carbon adsorption treatment will also remove sev
gen. As with ammonia removal, denitrification is usu eral metal ions, particularly cadmium, hexavalent
ally best achieved biologically, in which case it must chromium, silver, and selenium. Activated carbon
be preceded by nitrification. In biological denitrifica has been used to remove uncharged species, such
tion, nitrate nitrogen is used by a variety of het as arsenic and antimony, from an acidic stream. Car
erotrophic bacteria as the terminal electron acceptor bon adsorption has also been reported as an effec
in the absence of dissolved oxygen. In the process, tive means of removing endocrine disrupting com
the nitrate nitrogen is converted to nitrogen gas, which pounds (Hunter and Long, 2002).
escapes to the atmosphere. The bacteria in these
processes also require a carbonaceous food source. Membrane Processes – In recent years, the same
Denitrification can be achieved using many alterna factors that favor the use of membranes for potable
tive treatment processes including variations of many water treatment (increasing demand, decreasing
common suspended growth and some attached source water quality, and more stringent regulatory
growth treatment processes, provided that the pro standards) are influencing their use in treating
cesses are designed to create the proper microbial wastewaters prior to reuse. Improvements in mem
environment. Biological denitrification processes can brane technologies which separate suspended sol
be designed to achieve effluent nitrogen concentra ids, dissolved compounds, and human pathogens
tions between 2.0 and 12 mg/l of nitrate nitrogen. (protozoan cysts, bacteria and viruses) from re
claimed water have inspired greater confidence in
Phosphorus Removal – Phosphorus can be removed the use of reclaimed water for purposes which in
from wastewater through chemical or biological meth clude both direct and indirect human contact.
ods, or a combination. The choice of methods will
depend on site-specific conditions, including the Membrane filters became commercially available in
amount of phosphorus to be removed and the de 1927 from the Sartorius Company in Germany. Until
sired effluent phosphorus concentration. Chemical the mid-1940s, these filters were used primarily to
phosphorus removal is achieved by precipitating the remove microorganisms and particles from air and
phosphorus from solution through the addition of iron, water. The first viable reverse osmosis membrane
aluminum, or calcium salts. Biological phosphorus was developed in 1960 by researchers at the Uni
removal relies on the culturing of bacteria that will versity of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). The first
store excess amounts of phosphorus when exposed commercial reverse osmosis (RO) treatment plant
to anaerobic conditions, followed by aerobic condi went into service in 1965 in Coalinga, California. The
tions in the treatment process. In both cases, the use of membrane filtration systems was initially lim
phosphorus is removed from the treatment process ited to specialized applications including industrial
with the waste sludge. Chemical phosphorus removal separation processes and seawater desalination. By
can attain effluent orthophosphorus concentrations
110
the 1980s, membrane technology was well estab (sand) filters following biological treatment. UF mem
lished. branes have smaller pore sizes than MF membranes
and will provide complete removal of bacteria and
For many years, membranes were not used for waste protozoan cysts, and 4 to 6 log removal for viruses.
water treatment due to rapid fouling. Prior to 1990, Otherwise, UF membranes perform the same basic
there were a few notable exceptions, including a highly functions in wastewater applications as MF mem
publicized 5-mgd RO system at the Water Factory branes. NF and RO, while retaining smaller particles
21 reclamation plant in Orange County, California. including molecules and ions, require higher driving
This system went into service in 1975. The plant pressures, higher levels of pretreatment (prefiltration),
used cellulose acetate membranes with lime clarifi and typically operate at lower recovery rates.
cation and multi-media filtration for pretreatment prior
to the RO system. Another notable exception was a For wastewater treatment, the main emphasis has been
3.3-mgd (12 x 103-m3/d) Petromin plant in Riyadh, on MF, UF, and RO membranes. MF and UF have the
Saudia Arabia. ability to remove biological contaminants (e.g., bacteria
and viruses), and to reduce fouling on downstream re
The large-scale use of membranes for wastewater verse osmosis membranes. NF or RO systems are
reclamation did not become feasible until the1980s, needed where the removal of colloidal and/or dissolved
when the Australian firm, Memtec, developed a hol materials is required.
low fiber microfiltration membrane system with an
air backwash that could provide sustainable opera Membrane Bioreactors (MBRs)
tion for wastewater. The Orange County Water Dis
trict (California) began pilot testing in 1992 to inves MBRs typically consist of UF or MF membranes. These
tigate this new microfiltration system as pretreatment membranes are used to replace conventional gravity clari
for reverse osmosis. The use of this new fiers, and return activated sludge systems in conven
microfiltration system, followed by thin film compos tional activated sludge biological treatment systems. The
ite RO membranes, proved to be a tremendous im membranes can be immersed directly into the aeration
provement over the then-conventional system of lime tanks, or the mixed liquor can be pumped to external
clarification, sand filtration, and cellulose acetate pressure-driven membrane units. MBRs exhibit a num
membranes. Between 1994 and 2000, over half a ber of unique advantages:
dozen new dual membrane water reclamation sys
tems were constructed in California and Arizona. Sludge settling characteristics no longer affect final
effluent quality. Biological processes can be oper
Pressure-driven membrane treatment systems are ated at much higher suspended solids concentra
broadly categorized by the size particles rejected tions and thereby provide greater treatment capac
by the membrane, or by the molecular weight cut ity per unit volume.
off (MWCO). These classifications include:
MF and UF membranes provide nearly complete
Microfiltration (MF) 0.1 µ m or 500, 000 MWCO removal of protozoan cysts, suspended solids, and
Ultrafiltration (UF) 0.01 µ m or 20,000 MWCO bacteria, as well as partial removal of viruses. In
Nanofiltration (NF) 0.001 µm or 200 MWCO addition to removing suspended solids, UF mem
Reverse Osmosis (RO) 0.0001 µm or < 100 MWCO branes can retain large organic molecules, improv
ing the biodegradation of otherwise resistant com
pounds such as grease or emulsified oils.
Figure 3-11 shows a particle size separation com
parison chart for conventional filtration, microfiltration, Longer sludge ages (as long as 30 to 45 days) are
ultrafiltration, and reverse osmosis. Tables 3-13a and possible, improving the biodegradation of resistant
3-13b contain microfiltration and reverse osmosis re compounds and improving nitrification performance
moval data (Metcalf and Eddy, 2002). under adverse conditions (such as low temperature).
MF systems are used to remove relatively large sus Wasting occurs directly from the aeration basin, im
pended particles including particulates, large colloids, proving process control.
and oil. This includes providing about 3 to 6 log (99.9
percent to 99.9999 percent) removal of bacteria. In Submerged MBR systems are well suited to upgrade
wastewater treatment, MF systems can be used to existing systems with minimum new construction
replace secondary clarifiers and more conventional required and low impact to ongoing operations.
111
Table 3-13a. Microfiltration Removal Performance Data
MF Influent MF Effluent Average Reduction Reported in

Constituent
(m g/l) (m g/l) Reduction (%) Literature (%)
TOC 10-31 9-16 57 45-65
BOD 11-32 <2-9.9 86 75-90
COD 24-150 16-53 76 70-85
TSS 8-46 <0.5 97 95-98
TDS 498-622 498-622 0 0-2
NH3-N 21-42 20-35 7 5-15
NO 3-N <1-5 <1-5 0 0-2

-
PO 4 6-8 6-8 0 0-2
2-
SO 4 90-120 90-120 0 0-1
-
Cl 93-115 93-115 0 0-1
Turbidity 2-50 NTU 0.03-0.08 NTU >99 ---
1
Data collected from the Dublin San Ramon Sanitary District for the period from
April 2000 through December, 2000.
2
Typical flux rate during test period was 1600 l/m2·d.
Adapted from: Metcalf and Eddy, 2002
Table 3-13b. Reverse Osmosis Performance Data
RO Influent RO Effluent Average Reduction Reporte d in

Constituent
(m g/l) (m g/l) Reduction (%) Lite rature (%)
TOC 9-16 <0.5 >94 85-95
BOD <2-9.9 <2 >40 30-60
COD 16-53 <2 >91 85-95
TSS <0.5 ~0 >99 95-100
TDS 498-622 9-19 --- 90-98
NH 3-N 20-35 1-3 96 90-98
NO 3-N <1-5 0.08-3.2 96 65-85
-
PO 4 8-Jun 0.1-1 ~99 95-99
2-
SO 4 90-120 <0.5-0.7 99 95-99
-
Cl 93-115 0.9-5.0 97 90-98
Turbidity 0.03-0.08 NTU 0.03 NTU 50 40-80
1
Data collected from the Dublin San Ramon Sanitary District for the period from
April 1999 through December, 1999.
2
Typical flux rate during test period was 348 l/m2·d.
Adapted from: Metcalf and Eddy, 2002
Submerged membrane assemblies, either MF or UF, brane. Turbulence on the exterior (feed side) is main
are typically composed of bundles of hollow fiber or tained by diffused aeration to reduce fouling.
flat sheets of microporous membranes. Filtrate is
drawn through the membrane assemblies by means Low-pressure membrane filtration (MF or UF) can be
of a vacuum applied to the product side of the mem used following secondary clarification to provide a
112
higher degree of solids removal. Operating in a con Operator certification to ensure that qualified person
ventional (pressurized) flow pattern, clarified efflu nel operate the water reclamation and reclaimed wa
ent is further treated to remove particulate material ter distribution systems
(MF) or colloidal material (UF). Typical operating pres
sures range from 20 to 100 psi (100 to 700 KPa), and Instrumentation and control systems for on-line moni
reject flows range from 2 to 50 percent. MF and UF toring of treatment process performance and alarms
membranes can be used to pre-treat flow prior to NF for process malfunctions
or RO treatment.
A comprehensive quality assurance program to en
Higher-pressure NF and RO systems are used to sure accurate sampling and laboratory analysis pro
remove dissolved organic and inorganic compounds. tocol
The smaller pore size (lower MWCO) results in higher
quality product water, which may meet primary and Adequate emergency storage to retain reclaimed wa
secondary drinking water standards. The higher rates ter of unacceptable quality for re-treatment or alter
of rejection also result in increasing problems for dis native disposal
posing of the concentrate streams.
Supplemental storage and/or water supply to ensure
Other Processes – Other advanced wastewater treat that the supply can match user demands
ment processes of constituent removal include am
monia stripping, breakpoint chlorination for ammonia A strict industrial pretreatment program and strong
removal, and selective ion exchange for nitrogen re enforcement of sewer use ordinances to prevent il
moval. licit dumping into the collection system of hazard
ous materials or other materials that may interfere
3.4.3 Reliability in Treatment with the intended use of the reclaimed water
A high standard of reliability, similar to water treatment A comprehensive operating protocol that defines the
plants, is required at wastewater reclamation plants. responsibilities and duties of the operations staff to
Because there is potential for harm (i.e., in the event ensure the reliable production and delivery of re
that improperly treated reclaimed water is delivered to claimed water
the use area), water reuse requires strict conformance
to all applicable water quality parameters. The need for Many states have incorporated procedures and practices
reclamation facilities to reliably and consistently produce into their reuse rules and guidelines to enhance the reli
and distribute reclaimed water of adequate quality and ability of reclaimed water systems. Florida requires the
quantity is essential and dictates that careful attention producer of reclaimed water to develop a detailed operat
be given to reliability features during the design, con ing protocol for all public access systems. This protocol
struction, and operation of the facilities. must identify critical monitoring and control equipment,
set points for chlorine and turbidity, actions to be taken
A number of fallible elements combine to make up an in the event of a failure to achieve these limits, and pro
operating water reclamation system. These include the cedures to clear the substandard water and return to nor
power supply, individual treatment units, mechanical mal operations (FAC 62-610). Washington is in the pro
equipment, the maintenance program, and the operating cess of developing Water Reclamation Facilities Reli
personnel. An array of design features and non-design ability Assessment Guidance, which includes an alarm
provisions can be employed to improve the reliability of and reliability checklist.
the separate elements and the system as a whole. Back
up systems are important in maintaining reliability in the 3.4.3.1 EPA Guidelines for Reliability
event of failure of vital components. Particularly critical
units include the disinfection system, power supply, and More than 30 years ago, before the Federal Water Qual
various treatment unit processes. ity Administration evolved into the EPA, it recognized
the importance of treatment reliability, issuing guidelines
For reclaimed water production, EPA Class I reliability is entitled, “Federal Guidelines: Design, Operation and
recommended as a minimum criteria. Class I reliability Maintenance of Waste Water Treatment Facilities” (Fed
requires redundant facilities to prevent treatment upsets eral Water Quality Administration, 1970). These guide
during power and equipment failures, flooding, peak loads, lines provided an identification and description of vari
and maintenance shutdowns. Reliability for water reuse ous reliability provisions and included the following con
should also consider: cepts or principles regarding treatment plant reliability:
113
All water pollution control facilities should be planned Piping and pumping flexibility
and designed to provide for maximum reliability at
all times. Dual chlorination systems
Each facility should be capable of operating satis Automatic residual control

factorily during power failures, flooding, peak loads,
equipment failure, and maintenance shutdowns. Automatic alarms
Such reliability can be obtained through the use of Other Factors

various design techniques that will result in a facil
ity that is virtually “fail-safe” (Federal Water Quality Engineering report
Administration, 1970).
Qualified personnel
The following points highlight more specific subjects for
consideration in preparing final construction plans and Effective monitoring program
specifications to help accomplish the above principles:
Effective maintenance and process control
Duplicate dual feed sources of electric power program
Standby onsite power for essential plant elements In 1974, EPA subsequently published a document en
titled, “Design Requirements for Mechanical, Electric,
Multiple process units and equipment and Fluid Systems and Component Reliability” (U.S. EPA,
1974). While the purpose of that publication was to pro
Holding tanks or basins to provide for emergency stor vide reliability design criteria for wastewater treatment
age of overflow and adequate pump-back facilities facilities seeking federal financial assistance under PL
92-500, the criteria are useful for the design and opera
Flexibility of piping and pumping facilities to permit tion of all wastewater treatment plants. These require
rerouting of flows under emergency conditions ments established minimum standards of reliability for
wastewater treatment facilities. Other important reliability
Provision for emergency storage or disposal of design features include on-line monitoring (e.g., turbi
sludge (Federal Water Quality Administration, 1970) dimeters and chlorine residual analyzers, and chemical
feed facilities.
The non-design reliability features in the federal guide
lines include provisions for qualified personnel, an ef Table 3-14 presents a summary of the equipment re
fective monitoring program, and an effective mainte quirements under the EPA guidelines for Class I reli
nance and process control program. In addition to plans ability treatment facilities.
and specifications, the guidelines specify submission of
a preliminary project planning and engineering report, As shown in Table 3-14, the integrity of the treatment
which will clearly indicate compliance with the guideline system is enhanced by providing redundant, or oversized
principles. unit processes. This reliability level was originally speci
fied for treatment plants discharging into water bodies
In summary, the federal guidelines identify the following that could be permanently or unacceptably damaged by
8 design principles and 4 other significant factors that improperly treated effluent. Locations where Class I fa
appear to be appropriate to consider for reuse operations: cilities might be necessary are indicated as facilities dis
charging near drinking water reservoirs, into shellfish
Design Factors waters, or in proximity to areas used for water contact
sports (U.S. EPA, 1974). While over 30 years old, the
Duplicate power sources definition of Class I Reliability given in Table 3-14 is still
referenced in the regulations of many states as the mini
Standby power mum level of reliability required for water reclamation
projects.
Multiple units and equipment
Emergency storage
114
Table 3-14. Summary of Class I Reliability Requirements
Unit Clas s I Re quire m e nt

Mechanically-Cleaned A back-up bar screen shall be provided (may be manually cleaned).
Bar Screen
Pumps A back-up pump shall be provided for each set of pumps which
perform the same function. Design flow will be maintained with any 1
pump out of service.
Comminution Facilities If comminution is provided, an overflow bypass with bar screen shall
be provided.
Primary Sedimentation Basins There shall be sufficient capacity such that a design flow capacity of
50 % of the total capacity will be maintained with the largest unit out
of service.
Filters There shall be a sufficient number of units of a size such that a
design capacity of at least 75 % of the total flow will be maintained
with 1 unit out of service.
Aeration Basins At least 2 basins of equal volume will be provided.
Mechanical Aerator At least 2 mechanical aerators shall be provided. Design oxygen

transfer will be maintained with 1 unit out of service.
Chemical Flash Mixer At least 2 basins or a back-up means of mixing chemicals separate
from the basins shall be provided.
Final Sedimentation Basins There shall be a sufficient number of units of a size such that 75% of
the design capacity will be maintained with the largest unit out of
service.
Flocculation Basins At least 2 basins shall be provided.
Disinfectant Contact Basins There shall be sufficient number of units of a size such that the
capacity of 50% of the total design flow may be treated with the
largest unit out of service.
Source: Adapted from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974
3.4.3.2 Additional Requirements for Reuse a. Piping and Pumping Flexibility

Applications
Process piping, equipment arrangements, and unit struc
Different degrees of hazard are posed by process fail tures should provide for efficiency, ease of operation and
ures. From a public health standpoint, it is logical that a maintenance, and maximum flexibility of operation. Flex
greater assurance of reliability should be required for a ibility plans should permit the necessary degree of treat
system producing reclaimed water for uses where di ment to be obtained under varying conditions. All as
rect or indirect human contact with the water is likely, pects of plant design should allow for routine mainte
than for water produced for uses where the possibility of nance of treatment units without deterioration of the plant
contact is remote. Similarly, where specific constituents effluent.
in reclaimed water may affect the acceptability of the
water for any use (e.g., industrial process water), reliabil No pipes or pumps should be installed that would cir
ity directed at those constituents is important. Standby cumvent critical treatment processes and possibly al
units or multiple units should be encouraged for the ma low inadequately treated effluent to enter the reclaimed
jor treatment elements at all reclamation facilities. For water distribution system. The facility should be capable
small installations, the cost may be prohibitive and pro of operating during power failures, peak loads, equip
vision for emergency storage or disposal is a suitable ment failures, treatment plant upsets, and maintenance
alternative. shutdowns. In some cases, it may be necessary to di
vert the wastewater to emergency storage facilities or
115
discharge the wastewater to approved, non-reuse areas. Where emergency storage is to be used as a reliability
During power failures or in the case of an equipment fail feature, storage capacity is an important consideration.
ure, standby portable diesel-driven pumps can also be This capacity should be based on estimates of how long
used. it will take to return the facilities to normal operations
and the penalties (regulatory or otherwise) associated
b. Emergency Storage or Disposal with loss of treatment and discontinuation of reclaimed
water service.
The term “emergency storage or disposal” means to pro
vide for the containment or alternative treatment and dis c. Alarms
posal of reclaimed water whenever the quality is not suit
able for use. It refers to something other than normal Alarm systems should be installed at all water reclama
operational or seasonal storage (e.g., storage that may tion plants, particularly at plants that do not receive full-
be used to hold reclaimed water during wet weather times time attention from trained operators. Minimum instru
until it is needed for use). Provisions for emergency stor mentation should consist of alarms at critical treatment
age or disposal may be considered to be a basic reliabil units to alert an operator of a malfunction. This concept
ity provision for some reclamation facilities. Where such requires that the plant either be constantly attended, or
provisions exist, they may substitute for multiple or that an operator be on call whenever the reclamation plant
standby units and other specific features. is in operation. In the latter case, a remote sounding de
vice would be needed. If conditions are such that rapid
Provisions for emergency storage or disposal may attention to failures cannot be assured, automatically
include: actuated emergency control mechanisms should be in
stalled and maintained. Supervisory control and data
Holding ponds or tanks acquisition (SCADA) systems may be employed to ac
complish this objective, so long as information is made
Approved alternative disposal locations such as per available to locations that are staffed when operators are
colation areas, evaporation-percolation ponds, or not on site at the remote reclaimed water facilities. If a
spray disposal areas critical process were to fail, the condition may go unno
ticed for an extended time period, and unsatisfactory re
Deep injection wells claimed water would be produced for use. An alarm sys
tem will effectively warn of an interruption in treatment.
Pond systems having an approved discharge to re
ceiving waters or discharge to a reclaimed water use Requirements for warning systems may specify the mea
area for which lower quality water is acceptable surement to be used as the control in determining a unit
failure (e.g., dissolved oxygen) in an aeration chamber
Provisions to return the wastewater to a sewer for or the requirements could be more general in nature,
subsequent treatment and disposal at the reclama merely specifying the units or processes that should be
tion or other facility included in a warning system. The latter approach ap
pears more desirable because it allows for more flexibil
Any other facility reserved for the purpose of emer ity in the design. Alarms could be actuated in various
gency storage or disposal of untreated or partially- ways, such as failure of power, high water level, failure
treated wastewater of pumps or blowers, loss of dissolved oxygen, loss of
coagulant feed, high head loss on filters, high effluent
Automatically-actuated emergency or disposal provisions turbidity, or loss of disinfection.
should include all of the necessary sensors, instruments,
valves, and other devices to enable fully automatic di In addition to the alarm system, it is critical to have a
version of the wastewater in the event of failure of a treat means available to take corrective action for each situ
ment process, and a manual reset to prevent automatic ation, which has caused the alarm to be activated. As
restart until the failure is corrected. For either manual or noted above, provisions must be available to otherwise
automatic diversion, all of the equipment other than the treat, store, or dispose of the wastewater until the cor
pump-back equipment should either be independent of rections have been made. Alternative or supplemental
the normal power source or provided with a standby power features for different situations might include an auto
source. Irvine Ranch Water District in California auto matic switchover mechanism to emergency power and
matically diverts its effluent to a pond when it exceeds a a self-starting generator, or an automatic diversion
turbidity of 2 NTU. The water is then recirculated into the mechanism which discharges wastewater from the vari
reclamation plant influent. ous treatment units to emergency storage or disposal.
116
d. Instrumentation and Control Ability to provide service and
Major considerations in developing an instrumentation/ Reliability

control system for a reclamation facility include:
Source: WPCF, 1989
Ability to analyze appropriate parameters
Each water reclamation plant is unique, with its own
Ability to maintain, calibrate, and verify accuracy of requirements for an integrated monitoring and control in
on-line instruments strumentation system. The process of selecting monitor
ing instrumentation should address aspects such as fre
Monitoring and control of treatment process perfor quency of reporting, parameters to be measured, sample
mance point locations, sensing techniques, future requirements,
availability of trained staff, frequency of maintenance, avail
Monitoring and control of reclaimed water distribu ability of spare parts, and instrument reliability (WPCF,
tion 1989). Such systems should be designed to detect op
erational problems during both routine and emergency
Methods of providing reliability operations. If an operating problem arises, activation of a
signal or alarm permits personnel to correct the problem
Operator interface and system maintenance before an undesirable situation is created.
The potential uses of the reclaimed water determine the System control methods should provide for varying de
degree of instrument sophistication and operator atten grees of manual and automatic operation. Functions of
tion required in a water reuse system. For example, control include the maintenance of operating parameters
health risks may be insignificant for reclaimed water used within preset limits, sequencing of physical operations
for non-food crop irrigation. On the other hand, if waste in response to operational commands and modes, and
water is being treated for indirect potable reuse via automatic adjustment of parameters to compensate for
groundwater recharge, risks are potentially high. Con variations in quality or operating efficiency.
sequently, the instruments must be highly sensitive so
that even minor discrepancies in water quality are de System controls may be manual, automated, or a com
tected rapidly. bination of manual and automated systems. For manual
control, operations staff members are required to physi
Selection of monitoring instrumentation is governed by cally carry out all work tasks, such as closing and open
the following factors: ing valves and starting and stopping pumps. For auto
mated control, no operator input is required except for
Sensitivity the initial input of operating parameters into the control
system. In an automated control system, the system
Accuracy automatically performs operations such as the closing
and opening of valves and the starting and stopping of
Effects of interferences pumps. These automated operations can be accom
plished in a predefined sequence and timeframe and
Frequency of analysis and detection can also be initiated by a measured parameter.
Laboratory or field application Automatic controls can vary from simple float switches
that start and stop pumps to highly sophisticated com
Analysis time puter systems that gather data from numerous sources,
compare the data to predefined parameters, and ini
Sampling limitations tiate actions in order to maintain system performance
within required criteria. For example, in the backwashing
Laboratory requirements of a filter, instrumentation that monitors head loss across
a filter signals the automated control system that a pre
Acceptability of methods defined head loss value has been exceeded. The con
trol system, in turn, initiates the backwashing sequence
Physical location through the opening of valves and starting of pumps. A
simple, but effective, means of maintaining control in
the event of a power failure might include a judicious se
117
lection of how control valves respond to loss of power. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
For example, in a reuse system with a pair of control Wastewater (American Public Health Association,
valves routing water either to customers or to a reject 1989)
location, it is reasonable to expect that the valve to the
customers should fail to the closed position, while the Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in Water and
valve to reject would fail to the open position. Wastewater Laboratories (U.S. EPA, 1979a)
3.4.3.3 Operator Training and Competence Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes
(U.S. EPA, 1983)
Regardless of the automation built into a plant, mechani
cal equipment is subject to breakdown, and qualified, Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal
well-trained operators are essential to ensure that the and Industrial Wastewater (U.S. EPA, 1996)
reclaimed water produced will be acceptable for its in
tended use. The facilities operation should be based on Handbook for Sampling and Sample Preservation of
detailed process control with recording and monitoring Water and Wastewater (U.S. EPA, 1982)
facilities, a strict preventive maintenance schedule, and
standard operating procedure contingency plans all Typically, the QA plan associated with sampling and
structured to provide reliable product water quality. analysis is a defined protocol that sets forth data quality
objectives and the means to develop quality control data.
The plant operator is considered to be the most critical This serves to quantify precision, bias, and other reli
reliability factor in the wastewater treatment system. All ability factors in a monitoring program. Strict adherence
available mechanical reliability devices and the best to written procedures ensures that the results are com
possible plant design are to no avail if the operator is parable, and that the level of uncertainty is verifiable.
not capable and conscientious. Three operations per
sonnel considerations influence reliability of treatment: Quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) plans and
operator attendance, operator competence, and opera procedures are well documented in referenced texts.
tor training. The knowledge, skills, and abilities that an QA/QC measures should be dictated by the severity of
operator must possess varies, depending on the com the consequences of acting on the “wrong answer” or
plexity of the plant. Most regulatory agencies require on an “uncertain” answer. QA/QC procedures are often
operator certification as a reasonable means to expect dictated by regulatory agencies, and do constitute nec
competent operation. Frequent training via continuing essary operating overhead. For reuse projects, this over
education courses or other means enhances operator head may be greater than for wastewater treatment and
competence. disposal.
Actions of the system operator have the potential to ad Sampling parameters required for reclamation extend
versely affect water quality and public perception of the beyond those common to wastewater treatment. For
reclaimed water system. Therefore, a knowledgeable, example, turbidity measurements are sometimes required
attentive operator is critical to avoid potential threats to for reclamation, but not for wastewater treatment and dis
water quality. Consideration should be given to provide posal. Monitoring for chlorides may be necessary for re
special training and certification for reclaimed water use in coastal communities.
operations staff.
Adequate record keeping of reclaimed water system op
3.4.3.4 Quality Assurance in Monitoring erations is essential to the overall monitoring program.
Many facilities find it reasonable and compatible with
Quality assurance (QA) in monitoring of a reclamation their usual practice and requirements to include routine
program includes: (1) selecting the appropriate param reporting of plant operations and immediate notification
eters to monitor, and (2) handling the necessary sam of emergency conditions.
pling and analysis in an acceptable manner. Sampling
techniques, frequency, and location are critical elements 3.5 Seasonal Storage Requirements
of monitoring and quality assurance. Standard proce
dures for sample analysis may be found in the following Managing and allocating reclaimed water supplies may
references: be significantly different from the management of tradi
tional sources of water. Traditionally, a water utility draw
ing from groundwater or surface impoundments uses the
resource as a source and as a storage facility. If the
118
entire yield of the source is not required, the water is ASR of reclaimed water involves the injection of reclaimed
simply left for use at a later date. Yet in the case of water into a subsurface formation for storage, and recov
reuse, reclaimed water is continuously generated, and ery for beneficial use at a later time. ASR can be an ef
what cannot be used immediately must be stored or dis fective and environmentally-sound approach by provid
posed of in some manner. ing storage for reclaimed water used to irrigate areas ac
cessible to the public, such as residential lawns and ed
Depending on the volume and pattern of projected reuse ible crops. These systems can minimize the seasonal
demands, seasonal surface storage requirements may fluctuations inherent to all reclaimed water systems by
become a significant design consideration and have a allowing storage of reclaimed water during the wet sea
substantial impact on the capital cost of the system. son when demand is low, and recovery of the stored water
Seasonal storage systems will also impact operational during dry periods when demand is high. Because the
expenses. This is particularly true if the quality of the potential storage volume of an ASR system is essen
water is degraded in storage by algae growth and re tially unlimited, it is expected that these systems will
quires re-treatment to maintain the desired or required offer a solution to the shortcomings of the traditional stor
water quality. Pilot studies in California investigated the age techniques discussed above.
use of clarifiers with coagulation and continuous back
wash filtration versus the use of dissolved air flotation The use of ASR was also considered as part of the
with clarification and filtration. The estimated present Monterey County, California reuse program in order to
worth costs of these 2 strategies for treating reclaimed overcome seasonal storage issues associated with an
water returned from storage ponds were calculated at irrigation-based project (Jaques and Williams, 1996).
$1.92/gal ($0.51/l) and $2.17/gal ($0.57/l), respectively
(Fraser and Pan, 1998). Where water reuse is being implemented to reduce or
eliminate wastewater discharges to surface waters, state
The need for seasonal storage in reclaimed water pro or local regulations usually require that adequate stor
grams generally results from 1 of 2 requirements. First, age be provided to retain excess wastewater under a
storage may be required during periods of low demand specific return period of low demand. In some cold cli
for subsequent use during peak demand periods. Sec mate states, storage volumes may be specified accord
ond, storage may be required to reduce or eliminate the ing to projected non-application days due to freezing
discharge of excess reclaimed water into surface water temperatures. Failure to retain reclaimed water under
or groundwater. These 2 needs for storage are not mutu the prescribed weather conditions may constitute a vio
ally exclusive, but different parameters are considered lation of an NPDES permit and result in penalties. A
in developing an appropriate design for each one. In fact, method for preparing storage calculations under low
projects where both water conservation and effluent dis demand conditions is provided in the EPA Process De-
posal are important are more likely to be implemented sign Manual: Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
than those with a single driver. Drivers for the creation of (U.S. EPA, 1981 and 1984). In many cases, state regu-
an urban reuse system in Tampa, Florida included water lations will also include a discussion about the methods
conservation as well as the fact that any reclaimed wa to be used for calculating the storage that is required to
ter diverted to beneficial reuse helped the City to meet retain water under a given rainfall or low demand return
its obligations to reduce nitrogen loadings to area sur interval. In almost all cases, these methods will be aimed
face waters (Grosh et al., 2002). At the outset, it must be at demonstrating sites with hydrogeologic storage ca
recognized that the use of traditional storage methods pacity to receive wastewater effluent for the purposes
with finite capacities (e.g., tanks, ponds, and reservoirs) of disposal. In this regard, significant attention is paid to
must be very large in comparison to the design flows in subsurface conditions as they apply to the percolation
order to provide 100 percent equalization of seasonal of effluent into the groundwater with specific concerns
supplies and demands. With an average flow of 18 mgd as to how the groundwater mound will respond to effluent
(68 x 103 m3/d) and a storage volume of 1,600 million loading.
gallons (6 x 106 m3), the City of Santa Rosa, California,
still required a seasonal discharge to surface water to The remainder of this section discusses the design con
operate successfully (Cort et al., 1998). After attempting siderations for seasonal storage systems. For the pur
to operate a 3.0 mgd (11 x 103 m3/d) agricultural reuse pose of discussion, the projected irrigation demands of
system with 100 mg (0.4 x 106 m3) of storage, Brevard turf grass in a hot, humid location (Florida) and a hot, arid
County, Florida, decided to add manmade wetlands with location (California) are used to illustrate storage calcu
a permitted surface water discharge as part of its wet lations. Irrigation demands were selected for illustration
weather management system (Martens et al., 1998). because irrigation is a common use of reclaimed water,
and irrigation demands exhibit the largest seasonal fluc
119
tuations, which can affect system reliability. However, balance methods using site-specific hydrogeological in
the general methodologies described in this section can formation and temperature and rainfall corresponding to
also be applied to other uses of reclaimed water and other the 5-year record of actual use. Use of historical records
locations as long as the appropriate parameters are de estimated a required storage volume of 89 days of flow,
fined. while traditional land application methods estimated a
required storage volume of 196 days (Ammerman et al.,
3.5.1 Identifying the Operating Parameters 1997). It should also be noted that, like potable water,
the use of reclaimed water is subject to the customer’s
In many cases, a water reuse system will provide re perceived need for water.
claimed water to a diverse customer base. Urban reuse
customers typically include golf courses and parks and The primary factors controlling the need for supplemen
may also include commercial and industrial customers. tal irrigation are evapotranspiration and rainfall. Evapo
Such is the case in both the City of St. Petersburg, transpiration is strongly influenced by temperature and
Florida, and Irvine Ranch Water District, California, re will be lowest in the winter months and highest in mid
use programs. These programs provide water for cool summer. Water use for irrigation will also be strongly
ing, washdown, and toilet flushing as well as for irriga affected by the end user and their attention to the need
tion. Each water use has a distinctive seasonal demand for supplemental water. Where uses other than irriga
pattern and, thereby, impacts the need for storage. tion are being investigated, other factors will be the driv
ing force for demand. For example, demand for reclaimed
Reuse systems have significant differences with tradi water for industrial reuse will depend on the needs of the
tional land application systems starting with the funda specific industrial facility. These demands could be esti
mental objectives of each. Land application systems mated based on past water use records, if data are avail
seek to maximize hydraulic loadings while reuse sys able, or a review of the water use practices of a given
tems provide nonpotable waters for uses where a higher industry. When considering the demand for water in a
quality of water is not required. Historical water use pat manmade wetland, the system must receive water at the
terns should be used where available. Methodologies necessary time and rate to ensure that the appropriate
developed for land application systems are generally hydroperiod is simulated. If multiple uses of reclaimed
poorly suited to define expected demands of an irriga- water are planned from a single source, the factors af
tion-based reuse system and should be replaced with fecting the demand of each should be identified and inte
methodologies expressly developed to estimate irriga grated into a composite system demand.
tion needs. This point was illustrated well by calcula
tions of storage required to prevent a discharge based Figure 3-12 presents the average monthly potential
on: (1) actual golf course irrigation use over a 5-year evaporation and average monthly rainfall in southwest
period and (2) use of traditional land application water Florida and Davis, California (Pettygrove and Asano,
Figure 3-12. Average Monthly Rainfall and Pan Evaporation
120
1985). The average annual rainfall is approximately 52 months, reflecting the region’s seasonal influx of tour
inches (132 cm) per year, with an average annual poten ists. The seasonal irrigation demand for reclaimed water
tial evaporation of 71 inches (180 cm) per year in Florida. in Florida was calculated using the Thornthwaite equa
The average annual rainfall in Davis is approximately 17 tion. (Withers and Vipond, 1980). It is interesting to note
inches (43 cm) per year with a total annual average po that even in months where rainfall is almost equal to the
tential evaporation rate of approximately 52 inches (132 potential evapotranspiration, a significant amount of
cm) per year. supplemental irrigation may still be required. This occurs
as a result of high intensity, short duration, rainfalls in
In both locations, the shape of the potential evaporation Florida coupled with the relatively poor water-holding ca
curve is similar over the course of the year; however, the pacity of the surficial soils.
distribution of rainfall at the sites differs significantly. In
California, rainfall is restricted to the late fall, winter, and The average monthly irrigation demand for California,
early spring, with little rainfall expected in the summer shown in Figure 3-12, is based on data developed by
months when evaporation rates are the greatest. The Pruitt and Snyder (Pettygrove and Asano, 1985). Be
converse is true for the Florida location, where the major cause significant rainfall is absent throughout most of
portion of the total annual rainfall occurs between June
and September. the growing season, the seasonal pattern of supplemen
tal irrigation for the California site is notably different from
3.5.2 Storage to Meet Irrigation Demands that of Florida. For the California example, it has been
assumed that there is very little seasonal fluctuation in
Once seasonal evapotranspiration and rainfall have been the potential supply of reclaimed water. If the expected
identified, reclaimed water irrigation demands through annual average demands of a reclaimed water system
out the seasons can be estimated. The expected fluc are approximately equal to the average annual available
tuations in the monthly need for irrigation of grass in Florida supply, storage is required to hold water for peak de
and California are presented in Figure 3-13. The figure mand months. Using monthly supply and demand fac
also illustrates the seasonal variation in wastewater flows tors, the required storage can be obtained from the cu
and the potential supply of irrigation water for both loca mulative supply and demand. The results of this analy
tions. In both locations, the potential monthly supply and sis suggest that, to make beneficial use of all available
demand are expressed as a fraction of the average monthly water under average conditions, the Florida reuse pro
supply and demand. gram will require approximately 90 days of storage, while
California will need approximately 150 days.
To define the expected fluctuations in Florida’s reclaimed
water supply, historic flow data are averaged for each These calculations are based on the estimated consump
month. The reclaimed water supply for the Florida ex tive demand of the turf grass. In actual practice, the es
ample indicates elevated flows in the late winter and early timate would be refined, based on site-specific condi
spring with less than average flows in the summer tions. Such conditions may include the need to leach
Figure 3-13. Average Pasture Irrigation Demand and Potential Supply
121
salts from the root zone or to intentionally over-apply present more challenges for both internal and external
water as a means of disposal. The vegetative cover re corrosion than typically experienced in the potable water
ceiving irrigation will also impact the condition under which system. Generally, reclaimed water is more mineralized
supplemental water will be required. Drought conditions with a higher conductance and chloride content and lower
will result in an increased need for irrigation. The require pH, enhancing the potential for corrosion on the interior
ments of a system to accommodate annual irrigation of the pipe. Because reclaimed water lines are often the
demands under drought conditions should also be exam last pipe installed, there is an increased opportunity for
ined. stray current electrolysis or coating damage (Ryder,
1996). Design requirements will also be affected by the
3.5.3 Operating without Seasonal Storage policies governing the reclamation system (e.g., what level
of shortfall, if any, can be tolerated?). Where a dual dis
Given the challenges of using storage to equalize sea tribution system is created, the design will be similar to
sonal supplies and demands, it is not surprising that many that of a potable system in terms of pressure and vol
utilities choose to commit only a portion of the available ume requirements. However, if the reclaimed water dis
reclaimed water flow to beneficial reuse. tribution system does not provide for an essential ser
vice such as fire protection or sanitary uses, the reliabil
A partial commitment of reclaimed water may also have ity of the reclamation system need not be as stringent.
applications in the following situations: This, in turn, reduces the need for backup systems,
thereby reducing the cost of the system. In addition, an
The cost of providing storage for the entire flow is urban reuse program designed primarily for irrigation will
prohibitive experience diurnal and seasonal flows and peak demands
that have different design parameters than the fire pro
Sufficient demand for the total flow is not available tection requirements generally used in the design of po
table water systems.
The cost of developing transmission facilities for the
entire flow is prohibitive The target customer for many reuse programs may be
an entity that is not traditionally part of municipal water/
Total abandonment of existing disposal facilities is wastewater systems. Such is the case with agricultural
not cost-effective and large green space areas, such as golf courses, that
often rely on wells to provide for nonpotable water uses.
Systems designed to use only a portion of the reclaimed Even when these sites are not directly connected to
water supply are plentiful. It should be noted that a par municipal water supplies, reclaimed water service to
tial commitment of reclaimed water may be able to achieve these customers may be desirable for the following rea
significant benefits in terms of environmental impacts. sons:
Specifically, many surface water discharge permits are
based on the 7-day, 10-year (7Q10) low flow expected in The potential user currently draws water from the
the receiving water body. Such events invariably coin same source as that used for potable water, creating
cide with extended periods of low rainfall, which, in turn, an indirect demand on the potable system.
tend to increase the amount of water diverted away from
disposal and into the reuse system. The potential user has a significant demand for
nonpotable water and reuse may provide a cost-ef-
3.6 Supplemental Water Reuse fective means to reduce or eliminate reliance on ex
System Facilities isting effluent disposal methods.
3.6.1 Conveyance and Distribution The potential user is seeking reclaimed water ser
Facilities vice to enhance the quality or quantity (or both) of
the water available.
The distribution network includes pipelines, pump sta
tions, and storage facilities. No single factor is likely to A municipal supplier is seeking an exchange of
influence the cost of water reclamation more than the nonpotable reclaimed water for raw water sources
conveyance or distribution of reclaimed water from its currently controlled by the prospective customer.
source to its point of use. The design requirements of
reclaimed water conveyance systems vary according to The conveyance and distribution needs of these sites
the needs of the users. Water quality is, of course, a may vary widely and be unfamiliar to a municipality. For
consideration as well. Reclaimed water systems may example, a golf course may require flows of 500 gpm (38
122
l/s) at pressures of 120 psi (830 kPa). However, if the half the initial cost of installing a pipeline is for excava
golf course has the ability to store and repump irrigation tion, backfill, and pavement.
water, as is often the case, reclaimed water can be de
livered at atmospheric pressure to a pond at approxi A potable water supply system is designed to provide
mately one-third the instantaneous demand. Where frost- round-the-clock, “on-demand” service. Some nonpotable
sensitive crops are served, an agricultural customer may systems allow for unrestricted use, while others place
wish to provide freeze protection through the irrigation limits on the hours when service is available. A decision
system. Accommodating this may increase peak flows on how the system will be operated will significantly af
by an order of magnitude. Where customers that have no fect system design. Restricted hours for irrigation (i.e.,
history of usage on the potable system are to be served only evening hours) may shift peak demand and require
with reclaimed water, detailed investigations are warranted greater pumping capacity than if the water was used over
to ensure that the service provided would be compatible an entire day or may necessitate a programmed irriga
with the user needs. These investigations should include tion cycle to reduce peak demand. The Irvine Ranch Water
an interview with the system operator as well as an in District, California, though it is an “on-demand” system,
spection of the existing facilities. restricts landscape irrigation to the hours of 9 p.m. to 6
a.m. to limit public exposure. Due to the automatic tim-
Figure 3-14 provides a schematic of the multiple reuse ing used in most applications, the peak hour demand
conveyance and distribution systems that may be en was found to be 6 times the average daily demand and
countered. The actual requirements of a system will be triple that of the domestic water distribution system (Young
dictated by the final customer base and are discussed et al., 1987). The San Antonio Water System (Texas)
in Chapter 2. The remainder of this section discusses established a requirement for onsite storage for all users
issues pertinent to all reclaimed water conveyance and with a demand greater than 100 acre-feet per year as a
distribution systems. means of managing peak demands. As noted previously,
attributes such as freeze protection may result in similar
A concentration or cluster of users results in lower cus increases in peak demands of agricultural systems.
tomer costs for both capital and O&M expenses than a
delivery system to dispersed users. Initially, a primary System pressure should be adequate to meet the user’s
skeletal system is generally designed to serve large in needs within the reliability limits specified in a user agree
stitutional users who are clustered and closest to the ment or by local ordinance. The Irvine Ranch Water Dis
treatment plant. A second phase may then expand the trict, California runs its system at a minimum of 90 psi
system to more scattered and smaller users, which re (600 kPa). The City of St. Petersburg, Florida currently
ceive nonpotable water from the central arteries of the operates its system at a minimum pressure of 60 psi
nonpotable system. Such an approach was success (400 kPa). However, the City of St. Petersburg is recom
fully implemented in the City of St. Petersburg, Florida. mending that users install low-pressure irrigation devices,
The initial customers were institutional (e.g., schools, which operate at 50 psi (340 kPa) as a way of transfer
golf courses, urban green space, and commercial). How ring to a lower pressure system in the future to reduce
ever, the lines were sized to make allowance for future operating costs. The City of Orlando, Florida is design
service to residential customers. ing a regional urban reuse system with a target minimum
pressure in the transmission main of 50 psi (350 KPa) at
As illustrated in St. Petersburg and elsewhere, once re peak hour conditions (CDM, 2001).
claimed water is made available to large users, a sec
ondary customer base of smaller users often request When significant differences in elevations exist within
service. To ensure that expansion can occur to the pro the service area, the system should be divided into pres
jected future markets, the initial system design should sure zones. Within each zone, a maximum and mini
model sizing of pipes to satisfy future customers within mum delivery pressure is established. Minimum delivery
any given zone within the service area. At points in the pressures may be as low as 10 psi (70 kPa) and maxi
system, where a future network of connections is antici mum delivery pressures may be as high as 150 psi (1,000
pated, such as a neighborhood, turnouts should be in kPa), depending on the primary uses of the water.
stalled. Pump stations and other major facilities involved
in conveyance should be designed to allow for planned Several existing guidelines recommend operating the
expansion. Space should be provided for additional pumps, nonpotable system at pressures lower than the potable
or the capacities of the pumps may be expanded by system (i.e., 10 psi, 70 kPa lower) in order to mitigate
changes to impellers and/or motor size. Increasing a pipe any cross-connections. However, experience in the field
diameter by one size is economically justified since over indicates that this is difficult to achieve at all times
throughout the distribution system.
123
Figure 3-14. Example of a Multiple Reuse Distribution System
3.6.1.1 Public Health Safeguards Establish that public health is the overriding concern
The major concern guiding design, construction, and op Devise procedures and regulations to prevent cross-
eration of a reclaimed water distribution system is the connections
prevention of cross-connections. A cross-connection is
a physical connection between a potable water system Develop a uniform system to mark all nonpotable
used to supply water for drinking purposes, and any components of the system
source containing nonpotable water through which po
table water could be contaminated. Prevent improper or unintended use of nonpotable
water through a proactive public information program
Another major concern is to prevent improper use or
inadvertent use of reclaimed water as potable water. Provide for routine monitoring and surveillance of the
To protect public health from the outset, a reclaimed water nonpotable system
distribution system should be accompanied by health
codes, procedures for approval (and disconnection) of Establish and train special staff members to be re
service, regulations governing design and construction sponsible for operations, maintenance, inspection,
specifications, inspections, and operation and mainte and approval of reuse connections
nance staffing. Public health protection measures that
should be addressed in the planning phase are identified Develop construction and design standards
below.
124
Provide for the physical separation of the potable ply with the revised wording requirements as part of the
water, reclaimed water, sewer lines and appurte permit renewal process for FDEP (FDEP, 1999).
nances
Figure 3-15. Reclaimed Water Advisory Sign
Successful methods for implementing these measures
are outlined below.
a. Identification of Pipes and Appurtenances
All components and appurtenances of the nonpotable

system should be clearly and consistently identified
throughout the system. Identification should be through
color coding and marking. The nonpotable system (i.e.,
pipes, pumps, outlets, and valve boxes) should be dis
tinctly set apart from the potable system. The methods
most commonly used are unique colorings, labeling, and
markings.
Nonpotable piping and appurtenances are painted purple

or can be integrally stamped or marked, “CAUTION
NONPOTABLE WATER – DO NOT DRINK” or “CAU
TION: RECLAIMED WATER – DO NOT DRINK,” or the
pipe may be wrapped in purple polyethylene vinyl wrap. Valve boxes for hydraulic and electrical components
Another identification method is to mark pipe with col should be colored and warnings should be stamped on
ored marking tape or adhesive vinyl tape. When tape is the cover. The valve covers for nonpotable transmission
used, the words (“CAUTION: RECLAIMED WATER – DO lines should not be interchangeable with potable water
NOT DRINK”) should be equal to the diameter of the pipe covers. For example, the City of Altamonte Springs,
and placed longitudinally at 3-feet (0.9-meters) intervals. Florida uses square valve covers for reclaimed water and
Other methods of identification and warning are: sten round valve covers for potable water. Blow-off valves
ciled pipe with 2- to 3-inch (5- to 8-cm) letters on oppo should be painted and carry markings similar to other
site sides, placed every 3 to 4 feet (0.9 to 1.2 meters); system piping. Irrigation and other control devices should
for pipe less than 2 inches (5 cm), lettering should be at be marked both inside and outside. Any constraints or
least 5/8-inch (1.6 cm) at 1-foot (30-cm) intervals; plas special instructions should be clearly noted and placed
tic marking tape (with or without metallic tracer) with let in a suitable cabinet. If fire hydrants are part of the sys
tering equal to the diameter of pipe, continuous over the tem, they should be painted or marked and the stem
length of pipe at no more than 5-foot (1.5-meter) inter should require a special wrench for opening.
vals; vinyl adhesive tape may be placed at the top of the
pipe for diameters 2.5 to 3 inches (6 to 8 cm) and along b. Horizontal and Vertical Separation of Potable
opposite sides of the pipe for diameters 6 to 16 inches from Nonpotable Pipes
(15 to 40 cm), and along both sides and on top of the
pipe for diameters of 20 inches (51 cm) or greater (AWWA, The general rule is that a 10-foot (3-meter) horizontal
1994). interval and a 1-foot (0.3-meter) vertical distance should
be maintained between potable (or sewer) lines and
The FDEP requires all new advisory signs and labels on nonpotable lines that are parallel to each other. When
vaults, service boxes, or compartments that house hose these distances cannot be maintained, special authori
bibs, along with all labels on hose bibs, valves, and out zation may be required, though a minimum lateral dis
lets, to bear the words, “do not drink” and “no beber,” tance of 4 feet (1.2 meters) (St. Petersburg) is generally
along with the equivalent standard international sym mandatory. The State of Florida specifies a 5-foot (1.5-
bol. In addition to the words, “do not drink” and “no meter) separation between reclaimed water lines and
beber,” advisory signs posted at storage ponds and deco water lines or force mains, with a minimum of 3-foot (0.9-
rative water features also bear the words, “do not swim” meter) separation from pipe wall to pipe wall (FDEP,
and “no nadar,” along with the equivalent standard inter 1999). This arrangement allows for the installation of re
national symbols. Figure 3-15 shows a typical reclaimed claimed water lines between water and force mains that
water advisory sign. Existing advisory signs and labels are separated by 10 feet (3 meters). The potable water
will be retrofitted, modified, or replaced in order to com should be placed above the nonpotable, if possible. Un
125
der some circumstances, using a reclaimed water main Air gap

of a different depth than that of potable or force mains
might be considered to provide further protection from Reduced-pressure principal backflow prevention as
having an inadvertent cross–connection occur. sembly
Nonpotable lines are usually required to be at least 3 feet
(90 cm) below ground. Figure 3-16 illustrates Florida’s Double-check valve assembly
separation requirements for nonpotable lines.
Pressure vacuum breaker
c. Prevent Onsite Ability to Tie into Reclaimed
Water Lines Atmospheric vacuum breaker
The Irvine Ranch Water District, California has regula The AWWA recommends the use of a reduced-pressure
tions mandating the use of special quick coupling valves principal backflow prevention assembly where reclaimed
for onsite irrigation connections. For reclaimed water, water systems are present. However, many communi
these valves are operated by a key with an Acme thread. ties have successfully used double-check valve assem
This thread is not allowed for the potable system. The blies. The backflow prevention device will prevent water
cover on the reclaimed water coupler is different in color expansion into the water distribution system. At some
and material from that used on the potable system. Hose residences, the tightly closed residential water system
bibs are generally not permitted on nonpotable systems can create a pressure buildup that causes the safety re
because of the potential for incidental use and possible lief on a water heater to periodically discharge. This prob
human contact with the reclaimed water. Below-ground lem was solved by the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, by
bibs placed inside a locking box or that require a special providing separate pressure release valves, which allow
tool to operate are allowed by Florida regulations (FDEP, for the release of water through an outdoor hose bibb.
1999).
If potable water is used as make-up water for lakes or
d. Backflow Prevention reservoirs, there should be a physical break between the
potable water supply pipe and receiving reservoir. The
Where the possibility of cross-connection between po air gap separating the potable water from the reservoir
table and reclaimed water lines exists, backflow preven containing nonpotable water should be at least 2 pipe
tion devices should be installed onsite when both po diameters. There should never be any permanent con
table and reclaimed water services are provided to a user. nection between nonpotable and potable lines in the sys
The backflow prevention device is placed on the potable tem.
water service line to prevent potential backflow from the
reclaimed water system into the potable water system if In most cases, backflow prevention devices are not pro
the 2 systems are illegally interconnected. Accepted vided on a reclaimed water system. However, the San
methods of backflow prevention include: Antonio Water System (Texas) requires a reduced-pres-
Figure 3-16. Florida Separation Requirements for Reclaimed Water Mains
126
sure principal backflow preventer on the potable supply Differences in maintenance procedures for potable and
to properties using reclaimed water. In addition, the City nonpotable systems cannot generally be forecast prior
requires customers to use a double-check assembly or to the operation of each system. For instance, the City
air gap on the reclaimed water supply. This provision is of St. Petersburg, Florida flushes its nonpotable lines
basic to maintaining a consistent water quality in the San twice a year during the off-season months. The amount
Antonio reclaimed water supply. It is prudent to periodi of water used in the flushing is equal to a day’s demand
cally inspect the potable system to confirm that cross- of reclaimed water. The Irvine Ranch Water District (Cali
connections do not exist. The City of San Antonio alter fornia) reports no significant difference in the 2 lines,
nately shuts down the potable and reclaimed water at a though the reclaimed lines are flushed more frequently
site. The inactive system is then checked for residual (every 2 to 3 years versus every 5 to 10 years for po
pressure, indicating a cross- connection. Where possible, table) due to suspended matter and sediment picked up
dye tests are also conducted (Baird, 2000). The City of during lake storage. Verification that adequate disinfec
Altamonte Springs, Florida takes its entire reuse system tion has occurred as part of treatment prior to distribution
off line for 2 days each year as part of its cross-connec- to reclaimed water customers is always required. How
tion control program. ever, maintenance of a residual in the transmission/dis-
tribution system is not required. Florida requires a 1-mg/
e. Safeguards when Converting Existing Potable l chlorine residual at the discharge of the chlorine con
Lines to Nonpotable Use tact basin, but no minimum residual is required in the
reclaimed water piping system. The State of Washington
In cases where parts of the system are being upgraded is an exception in that it does require a minimum of 0.5-
and some of the abandoned potable water lines are be mg/l-chlorine residual in the distribution lines.
ing transferred to the nonpotable system, care must be
taken to prevent any cross-connections from occurring. a. Blow-Offs/Flushing Hydrants
As each section is completed, the new system should
be shutdown and drained and each water user checked Even with sufficient chlorination, residual organics and
to ensure that there are no improper connections. Addi bacteria may grow at dead spots in the system, which
tionally, a tracer, such as potassium permanganate, may may lead to odor and clogging problems. Flushing and
be introduced into the nonpotable system to test whether periodic maintenance of the system can significantly
any of it shows up at any potable fixture. allay the problem. In most cases, the flushing flow is
directed into the sewage system.
In existing developments where an in-place irrigation
system is being converted to carry reclaimed water, the b. Flow Recording
new installation must be inspected and tested with trac
ers or some other method to ensure separation of the Even when a system is unmetered, accurate flow re
potable from the nonpotable supply. It may warrant pro cording is essential to manage the growth of the sys
viding a new potable service line to isolated potable fa tem. Flow data are needed to confirm total system use
cilities. For example, if a park is converting to reclaimed and spatial distribution of water supplied. Such data al
water, rather than performing an exhaustive evaluation low for efficient management of the reclaimed water
to determine how a water fountain was connected to the pump stations and formulations of policies to guide sys
existing irrigation system, it could be simpler to supply a tem growth. Meters placed at the treatment facility may
new service lateral from the new water main. record total flow and flow-monitoring devices may be
placed along the system, particularly in high consump
3.6.1.2 Operations and Maintenance tion areas.
Maintenance requirements for the nonpotable components c. Permitting and Inspection

of the reclaimed water distribution system should be the
same as those for potable. As the system matures, any The permitting process includes plan and field reviews
disruption of service due to operational failures will upset followed by periodic inspections of facilities. This over
the users. From the outset, such items as isolation sight includes inspection of both onsite and offsite facili
valves, which allow for repair to parts of the system with ties. Onsite facilities are the user’s nonpotable water fa
out affecting a large area, should be designed into the cilities downstream from the reclaimed water meter.
nonpotable system. Flushing the line after construction Offsite facilities are the agency’s nonpotable water fa
should be mandatory to prevent sediment from accumu cilities up to and including the reclaimed water meter.
lating, hardening, and becoming a serious future mainte
nance problem.
127
Though inspection and review regulations vary from sys mal education to their personnel so that these
tem to system, the basic procedures are essentially the contractors are familiar with the regulations
same. These steps are described below. governing reclaimed water installations
(1) Plan Review – A contractor (or resident) must Submitting all modifications to approved fa
request service and sign an agreement with the cilities to the responsible agencies
agency or department responsible for permitting
reclaimed water service. Dimensioned plans and Detecting and recording any breaks in the
specifications for onsite facilities must conform transmission main
to regulations. Usually, the only differences from
normal irrigation equipment will be identification Randomly inspecting user sites to detect
requirements and special appurtenances to pre any faulty equipment or unauthorized use
vent cross-connections. Some systems, how
ever, require that special strainer screens be Installing monitoring stations throughout the
placed before the pressure regulator for protec system to test pressure, chlorine residual,
tion against slime growths fouling the sprinkler and other water quality parameters
system, meter, or pressure regulator.
A reclaimed water supplier should reserve the right to
The plans are reviewed and the agency works withdraw service for any offending condition subject to
with the contractor to make sure that the sys correction of the problem. Such rights are often estab
tem meets all requirements. Systems with cross- lished as part of a user agreement or a reuse ordinance.
connections to potable water systems must be Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the legal issues as
denied. Temporary systems should not be con sociated with reclaimed water projects.
sidered. Devices for any purpose other than irri
gation should be approved through special pro 3.6.2 Operational Storage
cedures.
As with potable water distribution systems, a reclaimed
Installation procedures called out on the plan water system must provide sufficient operational stor
notes are also reviewed because they provide age to accommodate diurnal fluctuations in demand and
the binding direction to the landscape contrac supply. The volume required to accommodate this task
tor. All points of connection are reviewed for will depend on the interaction of the supply and demand
safety and compatibility. The approved record over a 24-hour period.
drawings (“as-builts”) are kept on file. The “as
builts” include all onsite and offsite nonpotable Designs are dependent on assessments of the diurnal
water facilities as constructed or modified, and demand for reclaimed water. Such assessments, in most
all potable water and sewer lines. cases, require a detailed investigation of the proposed
user or users. When possible, records of actual histori
(2) Field Review – Field review is generally con cal use should be examined as a means to develop
ducted by the same staff involved in the plan demand requirements. Where records are absent, site-
review. Staff looks for improper connections, specific investigations are in order. In some cases, pilot
unclear markings, and insufficient depths of pipe studies may be warranted prior to initiating a full-scale
installation. A cross-connection control test is reuse program.
performed, followed by operation of the actual
onsite irrigation system to ensure that Figure 3-17 presents the anticipated diurnal fluctuation
overspraying and overwatering are not occurring. of supply and urban irrigation demand for a proposed re
Any problems identified are then corrected. Fol- claimed water system in Boca Raton, Florida (CDM, 1991).
low-up inspections are routine, and in some This information was developed based on the historic
cases, fixed interval (e.g. semi-annual) inspec fluctuations in wastewater flow experienced in Boca Raton
tions and random inspections are planned. and the approximate fluctuations in the reclaimed water
urban irrigation demand experienced in the St. Peters
(3) Monitoring – A number of items should be care burg, Florida urban reuse program.
fully monitored or verified, including:
Operational storage may be provided at the reclamation
Requiring that landscape contractors or ir facility, as remote storage out in the system, or as a
rigation contractors provide at least mini combination of both. For example, the City of Altamonte
128
Figure 3-17. Anticipated Daily Reclaimed Water Demand Curve vs. Diurnal Reclaimed Water Flow
Curve
Springs, Florida, maintains ground storage facilities at and rainfall is low, the configuration of onsite storage
the reclamation plant and elevated storage tanks out in ponds was found to have significant impacts on water
the reclaimed water system. Large sites, such as golf quality in terms of TDS (Chapman and French, 1991).
courses, commonly have onsite ponds capable of re Shallow ponds with a high area-to-volume ratio experi
ceiving water throughout the day. Such onsite facilities ence greater concentrations of dissolved solids due to
reduce operational storage requirements that need to surface evaporation. Dissolved solids increase in all
be provided by the utility. In the City of Naples, Florida ponds, but deeper ponds can mitigate the problem. Fig-
where reclaimed water is provided to 9 golf courses, re ure 3-18 summarizes the expected concentration levels
mote booster pump stations deliver reclaimed water to of TDS with varying pond depth for reclaimed water with
users from a covered storage tank located at the recla an influent concentration of 1,112 and 1,500 mg/l of TDS,
mation plant. assuming water is lost from storage through evaporation
only.
Operational storage facilities are generally covered tanks
or open ponds. Covered storage in ground or elevated 3.6.3 Alternative Disposal Facilities
tanks is used for unrestricted urban reuse where aes
thetic considerations are important. Ponds are less Beneficial water reclamation and reuse can effectively
costly, in most cases, but generally require more land augment existing water supplies and reduce the water
per gallon stored. Where property costs are high or suffi quality impacts of effluent discharge. Yet 100 percent
cient property is not available, ponds may not be fea reuse of the effluent may not always be feasible. In such
sible. Open ponds also result in water quality degrada cases, some form of alternative use or disposal of the
tion from biological growth, and chlorine residual is dif excess water is necessary. For the purposes of this sec
ficult to maintain. Ponds are appropriate for onsite ap tion, the discharge of reclaimed water will be considered
plications such as agricultural and golf course irrigation. “disposal,” regardless of whether it is for subsequent re
In general, ponds that are already being used as a use or permanent disposal.
source for irrigation are also appropriate for reclaimed
water storage. In addition to the biological aspects of Where reclamation programs incorporate existing waste
storing reclaimed water in onsite impoundments, the con water treatment facilities, an existing disposal system
centration of various constituents due to surface evapo will likely be in place and can continue to be used for
ration may present a problem. Reclaimed water often has partial or intermittent disposal. Common alternative dis
a more elevated concentration of TDS than other avail posal systems include surface water discharge, injec
able sources of water. Where evaporation rates are high tion wells, land application, and wetlands application.
129
Figure 3-18. TDS Increase Due to Evaporation In the City of Petaluma, California the ability to protect
for One Year as a Function of Pond the downstream habitat by eliminating surface water dis
Depth charges from May through September played a major
role in considering reuse. (Putnam, 2002).
3.6.3.2 Injection Wells
Injection wells, which convey reclaimed water into sub

surface formations, are also used as an alternative means
of disposal, including eventual reuse via groundwater
recharge. Thus, the purpose of the disposal (permanent
or for future reuse) will typically determine the type and
regulatory framework of the injection wells. The EPA
Underground Injection Control (UIC) program has catego
rized injection wells into 5 classes, only 2 of which (Class
I and V) apply to reclaimed water disposal.
Class I injection wells are technologically sophisticated

and inject hazardous and non-hazardous wastes below
the lowermost underground source of drinking water
(USDW). Injection occurs into deep, isolated rock forma
tions that are separated from the lowermost USDW by
These methods are described below. layers of impermeable clay and rock. In general, owners
and operators of most new Class I injection wells are
3.6.3.1 Surface Water Discharge required to:
Intermittent surface water discharge may provide an ac Site the injection wells in a location that is free of
ceptable method for the periodic disposal of excess re faults and other adverse geological features. Drill to
claimed water. While demand for reclaimed water nor a depth that allows the injection into formations that
mally declines during wet weather periods, it is during do not contain water that can potentially be used as
wet weather periods that surface waters are generally a source of drinking water. These injection zones
more able to assimilate the nutrients in reclaimed water are confined from any formation that may contain
without adverse water quality impacts. Conversely, dur water that may potentially be used as a source of
ing the warm summer months when surface water bod drinking water.
ies are often most susceptible to the water quality im
pacts of effluent discharges, the demand for irrigation Inject through an internal pipe (tubing) that is located
water is high and an excess of reclaimed water is less inside another pipe (casing). This outer pipe has ce
likely. Thus, the development of a water reuse program ment on the outside to fill any voids occurring be
with intermittent discharges can reduce or eliminate tween the outside pipe and the hole that was bored
wastewater discharges during periods when waters are for the well (borehole). This allows for multiple layers
most sensitive to nutrient concentrations while allowing of containment of the potentially contaminating in
for discharges at times when adverse impacts are less jection fluids.
likely. By eliminating discharges for a portion of the year
through water reuse, a municipality may also be able to Test for integrity at the time of completion and every
avoid the need for costly advanced wastewater treatment 5 years thereafter (more frequently for hazardous
nutrient removal processes often required for a continu waste wells).
ous discharge. The New York City’s investigation into
water reclamation included a comparison of the reduc Monitor continuously to assure the integrity of the
tion in nitrogen loadings that could be achieved through well.
BNR treatment or beneficial reuse. Table 3-15 provides
a summary of this effort and indicates the volume of Class V injection wells will likely include nearly all re
water that must be diverted to reuse in order to equal the claimed water injection wells that are not permitted as
nutrient reduction that would be realized from a given Class I injection wells. Under the existing federal regula
level of BNR treatment. tions, Class V injection wells are “authorized by rule” (40
CFR 144), which means they do not require a federal
130
permit if they do not endanger underground sources of 3.6.3.3 Land Application

drinking water and comply with other UIC program re
quirements. However, individual states may require spe In water reuse irrigation systems, reclaimed water is ap
cific treatment, well construction, and water quality moni plied in quantities to meet an existing water demand. In
toring standards compliance before permitting any injec land treatment systems, effluent may be applied in ex
tion of reclaimed water into aquifers that are currently or cess of the needs of the crop. Land application systems
could potentially be used for potable supply. A discus can provide reuse benefits, such as irrigation and/or
sion about potential reclaimed water indirect potable re groundwater recharge. However, in many cases, the main
use guidelines is contained in Chapter 4. focus of land application systems is to avoid detrimental
impacts to groundwater that can result from the applica
Injection wells are a key component of the urban reuse tion of nutrients or toxic compounds.
program in the City of St. Petersburg, Florida. The city
operates 10 wells, which inject excess reclaimed water In some cases, a site may be amenable to both reuse
into a saltwater aquifer at depths between 700 and 1,000 and “land application”. Such are the conditions of a Tal
feet (210 and 300 meters) below the land surface. Ap lahassee, Florida sprayfield system. This system is lo
proximately 50 percent of the available reclaimed water cated on a sand ridge, where only drought-tolerant flora
is disposed of through injection. When originally installed, can survive without irrigation. By providing reclaimed
the wells were permitted as Class I injection wells with water for irrigation, the site became suitable for agricul
the primary use for the management of excess reclaimed tural production of multiple crop types. However, be
water, but also were employed to dispose of any reclaimed cause of the extreme infiltration and percolation rates,
water not meeting water quality standards. The City is in it is possible to apply up to 3 inches per week (8 cm per
the permitting process to convert the wells to Class V week) of reclaimed water without significant detrimental
injection wells, for primary use as an ASR system. impacts to the crop (Allhands and Overman, 1989).
Under suitable circumstances, excess reclaimed water The use of land application as an alternative means of
can be stored in aquifers for subsequent reuse. In Or disposal is subject to hydrogeological considerations.
ange County, California injection of reclaimed water into The EPA manual Land Treatment of Municipal Waste-
potable supply aquifers has been conducted for seawa water (U.S. EPA, 1981) provides a complete discussion
ter intrusion control and groundwater recharge since 1976 of the design requirements for such systems.
and has expanded in recent years to Los Angeles County,
California. New advanced water treatment and injection The use of land application systems for wet weather dis
projects are underway in both counties to supply the posal is limited unless high infiltration and percolation
majority of coastal injection wells in Orange and Los rates can be achieved. This can be accomplished through
Angeles counties with reclaimed water to reduce depen the use of rapid infiltration basins or manmade wetlands.
dence on imported water from the Colorado River and
northern California. Additional discussion about reclaimed In cases where manmade wetlands are created, dam
water recharge can be found in Chapter 2. aged wetlands are restored, or existing wetlands are en-
Table 3-15. Nitrogen Mass Removal Strategies: Nutrient Removal vs. Water Reuse
Enhance d Ste p
Ste p Fe e d Equivale nt Fe e d BNR & Equivale nt
1998 Total 1998
Wate r Pollution BNR Proje cte d Wate r Se parate Wate r
Flow Efflue nt
Control Facility TN Dis charge Re us e Ce ntrate Re us e
(m gd) TN (lbs /d)
(lbs /d) (m gd) Tr e atm e nt (m gd)
(lbs /d)
Wards Island 224 29,000 24,000 39 12,500 128
Hunts Point 134 19,000 16,000 22 9,500 67
Tallman Island 59 7,700 3,500 33 3,500 33
Bowery Bay 126 19,700 11,000 56 6,500 85
th
26 Ward 69 15,500 7,500 36 5,000 48
131
hanced, wetlands application may be considered a form vestigation of environmental impacts is required, it may
of water reuse, as discussed in Section 2.5.1. Partial or be subject to state policies.
intermittent discharges to wetlands systems have also
been incorporated as alternative disposal means in wa The following conditions are given as those that would
ter reuse systems, with the wetlands providing additional induce an EIS in a federally-funded project:
treatment through filtration and nutrient uptake.
The project may significantly alter land use.
A wetlands discharge is used in Orange County, Florida,
where a portion of the reclaimed water generated by The project is in conflict with any land use plans or
the Eastern Service Area WWTF is reused for power policies.
plant cooling, and the remainder is discharged by over
land flow to a system of manmade and natural wetlands. Wetlands will be adversely impacted.
Figure 3-19 shows the redistribution construction wet
lands system. Application rates are managed to simu Endangered species or their habitat will be affected.
late natural hydroperiods of the wetland systems
(Schanze and Voss, 1989). The project is expected to displace populations or
alter existing residential areas.
3.7 Environmental Impacts
The project may adversely affect a flood plain or
Elimination or reduction of a surface water discharge by important farmlands.
reclamation and reuse generally reduces adverse water
The project may adversely affect parklands, pre
Figure 3-19. Orange County, Florida, serves, or other public lands designated to be of
Redistribution Constructed scenic, recreational, archaeological, or historical
Wetland value.
The project may have a significant adverse impact

upon ambient air quality, noise levels, surface or
groundwater quality or quantity.
The project may have adverse impacts on water

supply, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and their actual habi
tats.
The types of activities associated with federal EIS re

quirements are outlined below. Many of the same require
ments are incorporated into environmental assessments
required under state laws.
3.7.1 Land Use Impacts
Water reuse can induce significant land use changes,

quality impacts to the receiving water. However, moving either directly or indirectly. Direct changes include shifts
the discharge from a disposal site to a reuse system in vegetation or ecosystem characteristics induced by
may have secondary environmental impacts. An envi alterations in water balance in an area. Indirect changes
ronmental assessment may be required to meet state or include land use alterations associated with industrial,
local regulations and is required whenever federal funds residential, or other development made possible by the
are used. Development of water reuse systems may have added supply of water from reuse. Two cases from Florida
unintended environmental impacts related to land use, illustrate this point.
stream flow, and groundwater quality. Formal guidelines
for the development of an environmental impact state A study in the Palm Beach County, Florida area de
ment (EIS) have been established by the EPA. Such termined that reuse could provide water supply suffi
studies are generally associated with projects receiving cient to directly and substantially change the
federal funding or new NPDES permits and are not spe hydroperiod in the area. This change was significant
cifically associated with reuse programs. Where an in enough to materially improve the potential for sus
132
taining a wetlands ecosystem and for controlling the for irrigation or other purposes can cause an increase
extent and spread of invasive species. In short, the in base flows, if the prevailing groundwater elevation
added reuse water directly affected the nature of land is raised. (Groundwater effects are discussed fur
cover in the area. ther in Section 3.7.3.)
Indirect changes were also experienced in agricul Increases in stream flows during wet periods can
tural land use in the Orange County, Florida area. result from reduced soil moisture capacity in a tribu
Agricultural use patterns were found to be materially tary watershed, if there is pervasive use of recharge
influenced by water reuse associated with the Water on the land surface during dry periods. In such a
Conserv II project. Commercial orange groves were case, antecedent conditions are wetter, and runoff
sustained and aided in recovery from frost damage greater, for a given rainstorm. The instream system
to crops by the plentiful supply of affordable water bears the consequences of this change.
generated by reuse. The added reuse water affected
the viability of agriculture, and therefore, indirectly It is important to note that the concurrent effects of land
affected land use in the area. use changes discussed in Section 3.7.1 can exacerbate
either of the above effects.
Other examples of changes in land use as a result of
available reuse water include the potential for urban or Instream flow reduction is also possible, and can be
industrial development in areas where natural water avail more directly evident. For example, the Trinity River in
ability limits the potential for growth. For example, if the Texas, in the reaches near the City of Dallas, maintains
supply of potable water can be increased through recharge a continuous flow of several hundred cubic feet per sec
using reuse supply, then restrictions to development ond during dry periods. This flow is almost entirely com
might be reduced or eliminated. Even nonpotable sup posed of treated effluent from discharges further up
plies, made available for uses such as residential irriga stream. If extensive reuse programs were to be imple
tion, can affect the character and desirability of devel mented at the upstream facilities, dry weather flows in
oped land in an area. Similar effects can also happen on this river would be jeopardized and plans for urban de
a larger scale, as municipalities in areas where develop velopment downstream could be severely impacted due
ment options are constrained by water supply might find to lack of available water.
that nonpotable reuse enables the development of parks
or other amenities that were previously considered to be In addition to water quantity issues, reuse programs can
too costly or difficult to implement. Commercial users potentially impact aesthetics or recreational use and dam
such as golf courses, garden parks, or plant nurseries age ecosystems associated with streams where hydro
have similar potential for development given the pres logic behavior is significantly affected. Where wastewa
ence of reuse supplies. ter discharges have occurred over an extended period of
time, the flora and fauna can adapt and even become
The potential interactions associated with land use dependent on that water. A new or altered ecosystem
changes are complex, and in some cases the conclu can arise, and a reuse program implemented without con
sion that impacts are beneficial is subjective. An increase sideration of this fact could have an adverse impact on
in urban land use, for example, is not universally viewed such a community. In some cases, water reuse projects
as a positive change. For this reason, the decision-mak- have been directly affected by concerns for instream flow
ing process involved in implementing a reclamation pro reduction that could result from a reuse program. The
gram should result from a careful consideration of stake San Antonio Water System (SAWS) in Texas defined
holder goals. the historic spring flow at the San Antonio River headwa
ters during development of their reclaimed water sys
3.7.2 Stream Flow Impacts tem. In cooperation with downstream users and the San
Antonio River Authority, SAWS agreed to maintain a re
Instream flows can either increase or decrease as a con lease of 55,000 acre-feet per year (68 x 106 m3 per year)
sequence of reuse projects. In each situation where re from its water reclamation facilities. This policy protects
use is considered, there is the potential to shift water and enhances downstream water quality and provides
balances and effectively alter the prevailing hydrologic 35,000 acre-feet per year (43 x 106 m3 per year) of re
regime in an area. Two examples of the way flows can claimed water for local use.
increase as a result of a reuse project are as follows:
In the State of Washington, reuse water can be dis
In streams where dry weather base flows are ground charged to a stream as stream flow augmentation. Un
water dependant, land application of reclaimed water
133
der this provision, reclaimed water can be discharged to 3.8 Case Studies
surface water for purposeful uses such as:
3.8.1 Code of Good Practices for Water
If the flow is to maintain adequate flows for aquatic Reuse
life
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection
If the reclaimed water is going to be used downstream (FDEP) and the Florida Water Environment Association’s
and therefore the stream is acting as a conduit (FWEA) Water Reuse committee have developed the
Code of Good Practices for Water Reuse in Florida
In the City of Sequim, Washington 0.1 cfs (2.8 l/s) of (FDEP, 2002). The Code of Good Practices includes 16
reclaimed water is discharged into the Bell Stream to principles and is designed to aid reuse utilities as they
keep the benthic layer wet. The flow is not intended to implement quality water reuse programs.
maintain an environment for fish, but instead to main
tain other small species that live in the streambed. To Protection of Public Health and Environmental Qual-
date, no studies have been conducted to show the ef ity
fects to the ecosystem.
Public Health Significance – To recognize that dis
The implication of these considerations is that a careful tribution of reclaimed water for nonpotable purposes
analysis of the entire hydrologic system is an appropri offers potential for public contact and that such con
ate consideration in a reuse project if instream impacts tact has significance related to the public health.
are to be understood. This is particularly the case when
the magnitude of the flows impacted by the reuse pro Compliance – To comply with all applicable state,
gram is large, relative to the quantities involved in the federal, and local requirements for water reclama
hydrologic system that will be directly impacted by the tion, storage, transmission, distribution, and reuse
reuse program. of reclaimed water.
3.7.3 Hydrogeological Impacts Product – To provide reclaimed water that meets

state treatment and disinfection requirements and that
As a final environmental consideration of water reuse, is safe and acceptable for the intended uses when
the groundwater quality effects of the reclaimed water for delivered to the end users.
the intended use must be reviewed. The exact concerns
of any project are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Quality Monitoring and Process Control – To con
One of the better-known sources of potential groundwa tinuously monitor the reclaimed water being produced
ter pollution is nitrate, which may be found in, or result and rigorously enforce the approved operating proto
from, the application of reclaimed water. However, addi col such that only high-quality reclaimed water is
tional physical, chemical, and biological constituents delivered to the end users.
found in reclaimed water may pose an environmental risk.
In general, these concerns increase when there are sig Effective Filtration – To optimize performance of
nificant industrial wastewater discharges to the water the filtration process in order to maximize the effec
reclamation facility. tiveness of the disinfection process in the inactiva
tion of viruses and to effectively remove protozoan
Impacts of these constituents are influenced by the pathogens.
hydrogeology of the reuse application site. Where karst
conditions exist, for example, constituents may poten Cross-Connection Control – To ensure that effec
tially exist within the reclaimed water that will ultimately tive cross-connection control programs are rigorously
reach the aquifer. In many reclaimed water irrigation enforced in areas served with reclaimed water.
programs, a groundwater-monitoring program is re
quired to detect the impacts of reclaimed water con Inspections – To provide thorough, routine inspec
stituents. tions of reclaimed water facilities, including facili
ties located on the property of end users, to ensure
that reclaimed water is used in accordance with state
and local requirements and that cross-connections
do not occur.
134
Reuse System Management 3.8.2 Examples of Potable Water

Separation Standards from the State
Water Supply Philosophy – To adopt a “water sup of Washington
ply” philosophy oriented towards reliable delivery of
a high-quality reclaimed water product to the end Efforts to control cross-connections invariably increase
users. as part of the implementation of dual distribution sys
tems involving potable and nonpotable lines. A funda
Conservation – To recognize that reclaimed water mental element of these cross-connection control ele
is a valuable water resource, which should be used ments is the maintenance of a separation between po
efficiently and effectively to promote conservation table and nonpotable pipelines. While the specific require
of the resource. ments often vary from state to state, common elements
typically include color-coding requirements as well as
Partnerships – To enter into partnerships with the minimum vertical and horizontal separations. Excerpts
Department of Environmental Protection, the end from the State of Washington, “Reclaimed Water – Po
users, the public, the drinking water utility, other lo table Water Separation Standards,” are provided below
cal and regional agencies, the water management as an example of these requirements.
district, and the county health department to follow
and promote these practices. Policy Requirements: Potable water lines require pro
tection from any nonpotable water supply, including all
Communications – To provide effective and open classes of reclaimed water. For buried pipelines, proper
communication with the public, end users, the drink pipe separation must be provided.
ing water utility, other local and regional agencies,
the Department of Environmental Protection, the General Requirements: Standard potable-nonpotable
water management district, and the county health pipe separation standards should be observed at:
department.
1. Parallel Installations: Minimum horizontal
Contingency Plans – To develop response plans separation of 10 feet (3 meters) pipe-to-pipe.
for unanticipated events, such as inclement weather,
hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, drought, supply short 2. Pipe Crossings: Minimum vertical separation of
falls, equipment failure, and power disruptions. 18 inches (0.5 meters) pipe-to-pipe, with potable
lines crossing above nonpotable.
Preventative Maintenance – To prepare and imple
ment a plan for preventative maintenance for equip Special Conditions: Special laying conditions where the
ment and facilities to treat wastewater and to store, required separations cannot be maintained may be ad
convey, and distribute reclaimed water. dressed as shown in the following examples.
Continual Improvement – To continually improve Figure 3-20. A Minimum 5-foot (1.5-meter)

all aspects of water reclamation and reuse. Horizontal Pipe Separation
Coupled with an 18-inch (46-cm)
Public Awareness Vertical Separation
Public Notification – To provide effective signage

advising the public about the use of reclaimed water
and to provide effective written notification to end
users of reclaimed water about the origin of, the na
ture of, and proper use of reclaimed water.
Education – To educate the public, children, and

other agencies about the need for water conserva
tion and reuse, reuse activities in the state and lo
cal area, and environmentally sound wastewater
management and water reuse practices.
135
Figure 3-21. Irrigation Lateral Separation Special Condition Number 2 - Inadequate Horizon-
tal Separation: Site limitations will likely result in paral
lel pipe installations with less than 48 inches (1.2 meters)
of pipe-to-pipe separation. In these instances, a mini
mum pipe-to-pipe separation of 18 inches (46 cm) shall
be provided, and the reclaimed water irrigation lateral shall
be installed a minimum of 18 inches (46 cm) above the
potable water pipeline. An impervious barrier, such as
PVC sheeting, installed between the irrigation lateral and
the waterline for the length of the run is recommended.
Figure 3-23. Parallel Water - Lateral Installation
Pipeline Separation: Minimum pipeline separation be

tween any potable water line and reclaimed water irriga
tion laterals shall be 48 inches (1.2 meters) pipe-to-pipe
separation.
Special Condition Number 1- Irrigation Lateral Cross-

ings: Reclaimed water irrigation laterals will commonly
cross above potable water lines due to normal depths of
bury. To provide adequate protection, the reclaimed wa
ter irrigation lateral shall be cased in pressure-rated pipe
to a minimum distance of 4 feet (1.2 meters) on each
side of the potable water line.
Figure 3-22. Lateral Crossing Requirements

3.8.3 An Example of Using Risk
Assessment to Establish Reclaimed
Water Quality
Historically, the microbiological quality of both wastewa

ter effluents and reclaimed water has been based on in
dicator organisms. This practice has proved to be effec
tive and will likely continue into the foreseeable future.
However, given uncertainties in the use of indicator or

ganisms to control pathogens in reclaimed water and in
other waters, regulatory agencies could consider devel
oping a number of guidelines or standards for selected
pathogens using microbiological risk assessment. De
velopment of risk-based guidelines or standards could
include:
1. Selection of appropriate pathogens
2. Selection of microbial risk models
3. Structuring of exposure scenarios
136
4. Selection of acceptable risk levels of 365 days during the year. In addition, a worst-case
scenario involving ingestion of 100 ml of reclaimed water
5. Calculation of the concentration of the on a single day during the year was evaluated. These
pathogen that would result in a risk equal to the exposure scenarios were judged representative of the
acceptable level of risk use of reclaimed water to irrigate a residential lawn. The
exposure scenarios could be adjusted to fit other reuse
As an example, York and Walker-Coleman (York and activities, such as irrigation of a golf course, park, or
Walker-Coleman, 1999, 2000) used a risk assessment school. The results of this exercise are summarized in
approach to evaluate guidelines for nonpotable reuse Table 3-16.
activities. These investigations developed guidelines for
Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and enteroviruses using the It is important to note that, particularly for the protozoan
following models: pathogens, the calculations assume that all pathogens
present in reclaimed water are intact, viable, and fully
capable of causing infection. A Giardia infectivity study
Organism Model Used Parameters
conducted by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Dis
Echovirus 12 Pi = 1 - (1 + N/β)
-α
α = 0.374 trict (Garcia et al., 2002) demonstrated that Giardia cysts
(moderately infective) (beta-Poisson) β = 186.7 passing through a water reclamation facility were not in
Rotavirus Pi = 1 - (1 + N/β)
-α
α = 0.26 fectious. This basic approach could be applied to other
waters and could be used to establish consistency among
(highly infective) (beta-Poisson) β = 0.42
the various water programs.
Pi = 1 – e-rN
Cryptosporidium r = 0.00467
(exponential) 3.9 References
-rN
Pi = 1 – e
Giardia r = 0.0198
(exponential) When a National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
number is cited in a reference, that reference is available
Source: Rose and Carnahan, 1992, Rose et al., 1996
from:
Since specific types of viruses typically are not quanti
fied when assessing viruses in reclaimed water, assump National Technical Information Service
tions about the type of viruses present were required. 5285 Port Royal Road
For the purpose of developing a risk assessment model, Springfield, VA 22161
it was assumed that all viruses would be highly infective (703) 487-4650
rotaviruses. Helminths were not evaluated, since data
from St. Petersburg, Florida showed that helminths were Adams, A.P. and B.G. Lewis. Undated. “Bacterial Aero
consistently removed in the secondary clarifiers of a wa sols Generated by Cooling Towers of Electrical Gener
ter reclamation facility (Rose and Carnahan, 1992, Rose ating Plants.” Paper No. TP-191-A, U.S. Army Dugway
et al., 1996). Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah.
In this analysis, an annual risk of infection of 1x10-4 was Adams, D.L. 1990. “Reclaimed Water Use in Southern
used as the “acceptable level of risk.” Two exposure California: Metropolitan Water District’s Role.” 1990 Bi-
scenarios were evaluated. Average conditions were evalu ennial Conference Proceedings, National Water Supply
ated based on the assumption that an individual would Improvement Association, Volume 2. August 19-23,
ingest 1.0 ml of reclaimed water (or its residue) on each 1990. Buena Vista, Florida.
Table 3-16. Average and Maximum Conditions for Exposure
Calculated Allowable Concentrations

Organism Units
Average Maximum
Giardia Viable, infectious cysts/100 l 1.4 5
Cryptosporidium Viable, infectious oocysts/100 l 5.8 22
Enterovirus (a) PFU/100 l 0.044 0.165
Note: (a) Assumes all viruses are highly infective Rotavirus.
Source: York and Walker-Coleman, 1999, 2000
137
Ahel M., W. Giger W., and M. Koch. 1994. “Behavior of Baird, F. 2000. “Protecting San Antonio’s Potable Water
Alkylphenol Polyethoxylate Surfactants in the Aquatic Supply from Cross Connections Associated with Re-
Environment 1. Occurrence and Transformation in Sew- cycled/Reclaimed Water.” 2000 Water Reuse Conference
age-Treatment.” Water Research, 28(5), 1131-1142. Proceedings. January 30-February 2, 2000. San Anto
nio, Texas.
Allhands, M.N. and A.R. Overman. 1989. Effects of Mu-
nicipal Effluent Irrigation on Agricultural Production and Berkett, J.W., and J.N. Lester. 2003. Endocrine Disrupt-
Environmental Quality. Agricultural Engineering Depart ers in Wastewater and Sludge Treatment Processes.
ment, University of Florida. Gainesville, Florida. Lewis Publishers. IWA Publishing. Boca Raton, Florida.
American Public Health Association. 1989. Standard Bryan, R.T. 1995. “Microsporidiosis as an AIDS-related
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. Opportunistic Infection.” Clin. Infect. Dis. 21, 62-65.
17th Edition. [Clesceri, L.S.; A.E. Greenberg; and R.R.
Trussell (eds.)], Washington D.C. California Department of Health Services. 1990. Guide-
lines Requiring Backflow Protection for Reclaimed Wa-
American Water Works Association Website, ter Use Areas. California Department of Health Services,
www.awwa.org 2003. Office of Drinking Water. Sacramento, California.
American Water Works Association. 1994. Dual Water Camann, D.E., R.J. Graham, M.N. Guentzel, H.J.
Systems. McGraw-Hill. New York. Harding, K.T. Kimball, B.E. Moore, R.L. Northrop, N.L.
Altman, R.B. Harrist, A. H. Holguin, R.L. Mason, C.B.
American Water Works Association. 1990. Water Qual- Popescu, and C.A. Sorber. 1986. The Lubbock Land
ity and Treatment 4th Ed. McGraw-Hill. New York. Treatment System Research and Demonstration Project:
Volume IV. Lubbock Infection Surveillance Study. EPA-
Ammerman, D.K., M.G. Heyl, and R.C. Dent. 1997. “Sta 600/2-86-027d, NTIS No. PB86-173622. U.S. Environ
tistical Analysis of Reclaimed Water Use at the mental Protection Agency, Health Effects Research
Loxahatchee River District Reuse System.” Proceedings Laboratory, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
for the Water Environment Federation, 70th Annual Con-
ference and Exposition. October 18-22, 1997. Chicago, Camann, D.E. and M.N. Guentzel. 1985. “The Distribu
Illinois. tion of Bacterial Infections in the Lubbock Infection Sur
veillance Study of Wastewater Spray Irrigation.” Future
Armon, R. G., Oron, D. Gold, R. Sheinman, and U. of Water Reuse, Proceedings of the Water Reuse Sym-
Zuckerman. 2002. “Isolation and Identification of the posium III. pp. 1470-1495. AWWA Research Founda
Waterborne Protozoan Parasites Cryptosporidium spp and tion. Denver, Colorado.
Giardia spp., and Their Presence on Restricted and Un
restricted Irrigated Vegetables in Israel.”: Perserving the Camann, D.E., D.E. Johnson, H.J. Harding, and C.A.
Quality of Our Water Resources. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Sorber. 1980. “Wastewater Aerosol and School Atten
dance Monitoring at an Advanced Wastewater Treat
Asano, T, Leong, L.Y.C, M. G. Rigby, and R. H. Sakaji. ment Facility: Durham Plant, Tigard, Oregon.” Waste-
1992. “Evaluation of the California Wastewater Reclama water Aerosols and Disease. pp. 160-179.EPA-600/9-
tion Criteria Using Enteric Virus Monitoring Data.” Water 80-028, NTIS No. PB81-169864. U.S. Environmental
Science Technology 26 7/8: 1513-1522. Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Asano, T. and R.H. Sakaji. 1990. “Virus Risk Analysis in Camann, D.E., and B.E. Moore. 1988. “Viral Infections
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse.” Chemical Water Based on Clinical Sampling at a Spray Irrigation Site.”
and Wastewater Treatment. pp. 483-496.Springer-Verlay, Implementing Water Reuse, Proceedings of Water Re-
Berlin. use Symposium IV. pp. 847-863. AWWA Research Foun
dation. Denver, Colorado.
Bailey, J., R. Raines, and E. Rosenblum. 1998. “The
Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program – A Part CDM. 2001. “City of Orlando Phase I Eastern Regional
nership to Maximize San Francisco Bay Area Water Re Reclaimed Water Distribution System Expansion.” Or
cycling.” Proceedings of the Water Environment Federa- lando, Florida.
tion 71st Annual Conference and Exposition. October 3-7,
1998. Orlando, Florida. CDM. 1997. “Reclaimed Water and Wastewater Reuse
Program, Final Report.” Town of Cary, North Carolina.
138
CDM. 1991. “Boca Raton Reuse Master Plan.” Ft. Lau Crook, J. 1990. “Water Reclamation.” Encyclopedia of
derdale, Florida. Physical Science and Technology. Academic Press, Inc.
pp. 157-187. San Diego, California.
Casson, L.W., M.O.D. Ritter, L.M. Cossentino; and P.
Gupta. 1997. “Survival and Recovery of Seeded HIV in Crook, J., and W.D. Johnson. 1991. “Health and Water
Water and Wastewater.” Wat. Environ. Res. 69(2):174- Quality Considerations with a Dual Water System.” Wa-
179. ter Environment and Technology. 3(8): 13:14.
Casson, L.W., C.A. Sorber, R.H. Palmer, A. Enrico, and Dacko, B., and B. Emerson. 1997. “Reclaimed Water
P. Gupta. 1992. “HIV in Wastewater.” Water Environ- and High Salts – Designing Around the Problem.” Pro-
ment Research. 64(3): 213-215. ceedings for the Water Environment Federation, 70th
Annual Conference and Exposition. October 18-22,
Chapman, J.B., and R.H. French. 1991. “Salinity Prob 1997. Chicago, Illinois.
lems Associated with Reuse Water Irrigation of South
western Golf Courses.” Proceedings of the 1991 Spe Desbrow C., E.J. Routledge, G.C. Brighty, J.P. Sumpter,
cialty Conference Sponsored by Environmental Engi and M. Waldock. 1998. “Identification of Estrogenic
neering Division of the American Society of Civil Engi Chemicals in STW Effluent. 1. Chemical Tractionation
neers. and in vitro biological screening.” Environ Sci Technol .
32: 1549-1558.
Clara, M., B. Strenn, and N. Kreuzinger. 2004.
“Carbamezepine as a Possible Anthropogenic Marker in Dowd, S.E. and S.D. Pillai, 1998. “Groundwater Sam
the Aquatic Environment.” Investigations on the Behavior pling for Microbial Analysis.” In S.D. Pillai (ed.) Chapter
of Carbamezepine in Wastewater Treatment and during 2: Microbial Pathogens within Aquifers - Principles & Pro-
Groundwater Infiltration, Water Research 38, 947-954. tocols. Springer-Verlag.
Codex Alimentarius, Codex Alimentarious Commission, Dowd, S.E., C.P. Gerba, M. Kamper, and I. Pepper. 1999.
http://www.codexalimentarius.net. “Evaluation of methodologies including Immunofluores
cent Assay (IFA) and the Polymerase Chain Reaction
Cooper, R.C., A.W. Olivieri, R.E. Danielson, P.G. Bad (PCR) for Detection of Human Pathogenic Microsporidia
ger, R.C. Spear, and S. Selvin. 1986. Evaluation of Mili in Water.” Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 35, 43-52.
tary Field-Water Quality: Volume 5: Infectious Organisms
of Military Concern Associated with Consumption: As East Bay Municipal Utility District. 1979. Wastewater
sessment of Health Risks and Recommendations for Reclamation Project Report. Water Resources Planning
Establishing Related Standards. Report No. UCRL-21008 Division, Oakland, California.
Vol. 5. Environmental Sciences Division, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, University of California, Elefritz, R. 2002. “Designing for Non-Detectable Fecal
Livermore, California. Coliform…Our Experience With UV Light.” Proceedings
of the Florida Water Resources Conference. March 2002.
Cort, R.P., A.J. Hauge, and D. Carlson. 1998. “How Much Orlando, Florida.
Can Santa Rosa Expand Its Water Reuse Program?”
Water Reuse Conference Proceedings. American Water EOA, Inc. 1995. Microbial Risk Assessment for Re-
Works Association. Denver, Colorado. claimed Water. Report prepared for Irvine Ranch Water
District. Oakland, California.
Cotte L., Rabodonirina M., Chapuis F., Bailly F., Bissuel
F., Raynal C., Gelas P., Persat F., Piens MA., and Trepo Fannin, K.F., K.W. Cochran, D.E. Lamphiear, and A.S.
C. 1999. Waterborne Outbreak of Intestinal Monto. 1980. “Acute Illness Differences with Regard to
Microsporidiosis in Persons with and without Human Distance from the Tecumseh, Michigan Wastewater Treat
Immunodeficiency Virus Infection. J Infect Dis.; 180(6): ment Plant.” Wastewater Aerosols and Disease.pp. 117-
2003-8 135.EPA-600/9-80-028. NTIS No. PB81-169864. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Crook, J. 1998. “Water Reclamation and Reuse Criteria.”
Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. pp. 627-703, Feachem, R.G, D.J. Bradley, H. Garelick, and D.D. Mara.
Technomic Publishing Company, Inc. Lancaster, Penn 1983. Sanitation and Disease-Health Aspects of Excreta
sylvania. and Wastewater Management. Published for the World
Bank, John Wiley & Sons. Chicester, Great Britain.
139
Federal Water Quality Administration. 1970. Federal “Critical Period Operation of the Santa Rosa Municipal
Guidelines: Design, Operation and Maintenance of Reuse System.” Proceedings of the Water Reuse Sym-
Waste Water Treatment Facilities. U.S. Department of posium IV. August 2 - 7, 1987. AWWA Research Foun
the Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration. Wash dation, Denver, Colorado.
ington, D.C.
Fraser, J., and N. Pan. 1998. “Algae Laden Pond Efflu
Ferguson P.L., C.R. Iden, A.E. McElroy, and B.J. ents – Tough Duty for Reclamation Filters.” Water Re-
Brownawell. 2001. “Determination of Steroid Estrogens use Conference Proceedings. American Water Works
in Wastewater by Immunoaffinity Extraction Coupled with Association. Denver, Colorado.
HPLC-Electrospray-MS.” Anal. Chem.73(16), 3890
3895. Fujita Y., W.H. Ding, and M. Reinhard. 1996. “Identifi
cation of Wastewater Dissolved Organic Carbon Charac
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2003. teristics in Reclaimed Wastewater and Recharged
Reuse Coordinating Committee and the Water Reuse Groundwater.” Water Environment Research. 68(5), 867
Work Group. “Water Reuse for Florida: Strategies for 876.
Effective Use of Reclaimed Water.” Tallahassee, Florida.
Gale, Paul. 2002. “Using Risk Assessment to Identify
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002. Future Research Requirements.” Journal of American
Code of Good Practices for Water Reuse in Florida. Tal Water Works Association, Volume 94, No. 9. Septem
lahassee, Florida. ber, 2002.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2002. Garcia, A., W. Yanko, G. Batzer, and G. Widmer. 2002.
Florida Water Conservation Initiative. Tallahassee, “Giardia cysts in Tertiary-Treated Wastewater Effluents:
Florida. Are they Infective?” Water Environment Research.
74:541-544.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2001.
Water Reuse Work Group. Using Reclaimed Water to Genneccaro, Angela L., Molly R. McLaughlin, Walter
Conserve Florida’s Water Resources. A report to the Quintero-Betancourt, Debra E. Huffman, and Jean B.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection as part Rose. 2003. “Infectious Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts
of the Water Conservation Initiative. in Final Reclaimed Effluent,” Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 69(8): 4983-4984 August, 2003, p.4983-
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999. 4984.
“Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application.” Chap
ter 62-610, Florida Administrative Code. Tallahassee, FL. Gerba, C.P. 2000. “Assessment of Enteric Pathogen
Shedding by Bathers during Recreational Activity and
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999. its Impact on Water Quality.” Quant. Micrbiol. 2: 55-68.
Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection for Domestic Wastewater.
Tallahassee, Florida. Gerba, C.P, and S.M. Goyal. 1985. “Pathogen Removal
from Wastewater during Groundwater Recharge.” Arti-
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999. ficial Recharge of Groundwater. pp. 283-317. Butterworth
Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application. Chap Publishers. Boston, Massachusetts.
ter 17-610, Florida Administrative Code. Tallahassee,
Florida. Gerba, C.P., and C.N. Haas. 1988. “Assessment of Risks
Associated with Enteric Viruses in Contaminated Drink
Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1996. ing Water.” Chemical and Biological Characterization of
Domestic Wastewater Facilities. Chapter 62-610, Florida Sludges, Sediments, Dredge Spoils, and Drilling Muds.
Administrative Code. Tallahassee, Florida. ASTM STP 976. pp. 489-494, American Society for Test
ing and Materials. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Forest, G., J. Peters, and K. Rombeck. 1998. “Reclaimed
Water Conservation: A Project APRICOT Update.” Pro- Grisham, A., and W.M. Fleming. 1989. “Long-Term Op
ceedings of the Water Environment Federation, 71st An- tions for Municipal Water Conservation.” Journal AWWA,
nual Conference and Exposition. October 3-7, 1998. Or 81:34-42.
lando, Florida.
Grosh, E.L., R.L. Metcalf, and D.H. Twachtmann. 2002.
Fox, D.R., G.S. Nuss, D.L. Smith, and J. Nosecchi. 1987.
140
“Recognizing Reclaimed Water as a Valuable Resource: 1998. “Efficacy of Pulsed White Light to Inactivate Mi
The City of Tampa’s First Residential Reuse Project.” croorganisms.” Proceedings, AWWA WQTC, San Diego,
2002 WateReuse Annual Symposium, Orlando, Florida. CA. November 1-5.
September 8-11, 2002.
Hunter, G., and B. Long. 2002. “Endocrine Disrupters in
Harries J.E., D.A. Sheahan, S. Jobling, P. Mattiessen, Reclaimed Water Effective Removal from Disinfection
P. Neall, E.J. Routledge, R. Rycroft, J.P. Sumpter, and Technologies.” 2002 Annual Symposium – WateReuse
T. Tylor. 1997. “Estrogenic Activity in Five United King- Symposium. Orlando, Florida. September 8-11, 2002.
dom Rivers Detected by Measurement of Vitellogenesis
in Caged Male Trout.” Environ Toxicol Chem. 16: 534 Hurst, C.J., W.H. Benton, and R.E. Stetler. 1989. “De
542. tecting Viruses in Water.” Journal AWWA.81(9): 71-80.
Harries J.E., D.A. Sheahan, S. Jobling, P. Mattiessen, P. Irvine Ranch Water District. 2002. Water Resource Mas-
Neall, E.J. Routledge, R. Rycroft, J.P. Sumpter, and T. ter Plan. Irvine, California.
Tylor. 1996. “A Survey of Estrogenic Activity in United
Kingdom Inland Waters.” Environ Toxicol Chem. 15: 1993 Jaques, R.S., and D. Williams. 1996. “Enhance the Fea
2002. sibility of Reclamation Projects through Aquifer Storage
and Recovery.” Water Reuse Conference Proceedings.
Haas, C.N. A. Thayyat-Madabusi, J.B. Rose, and C.P. American Water Works Association. Denver, Colorado.
Gerba. 2000. “Development of a Dose-response Relation
ship for Escherichia coli.” 0157:H7. Intern. J. Food Jansons, J., L.W. Edmonds, B. Speight, and M.R.
Microbiol.1:1-7. Bucens. 1989. “Survival of Viruses in Groundwater.”
Water Research, 23(3):301-306.
Haas, C.H., J.B. Rose, and C.P. Gerba. (eds) 1999.
Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment. John Wiley and Jenks, J.H. 1991. “Eliminating Summer Wastewater Dis
Sons, New York, New York. charge.” Water Environment & Technology, 3(4): 9.
Hayes T.B., A. Collins, M. Lee, M. Mendoza, N. Noriega, Johnson, W.D. 1998. “Innovative Augmentation of a
A.A. Stuart, and A. Vonk. 2002. “Hermaphroditic, De- Community’s Water Supply – The St. Petersburg, Florida
masculinized Frogs After Eexposure to the Herbicide Atra Experience.” Proceedings of the Water Environment Fed-
zine at Low Ecologically Relevant Doses.” Proc. Nat. eration, 71st Annual Conference and Exposition. October
Acad. Sci. 99(8) 5476-5480. 3-7, 1998. Orlando, Florida.
Hench, K. R., G.K. Bissonnette, A.J. Sexstone, J.G. Johnson, W.D., and J.R. Parnell. 1987. “The Unique Ben-
Coleman, K. Garbutt, and J.G. Skousen. 2003. “Fate of efits/Problems When Using Reclaimed Water in a Coastal
Physical, Chemical and Microbila Contaminants in Do Community.” Proceedings of the Water Reuse Sympo-
mestic Wastewater Following Treatment by Small Con sium IV, pp. 259-270. August 2-7, 1987. AWWA Research
structed Wetlands.” Wat. Res. 37: 921-927. Foundation. Denver, Colorado.
Hirsekorn, R.A., and R.A. Ellison, Jr. 1987. “Sea Pines Jolis, D., C. Lan, P. Pitt, and R. Hirano. 1996. “Particle
Public Service District Implements a Comprehensive Size Effects on UV Light Disinfection of Filtered Re
Reclaimed Water System.” Proceedings of the Water claimed Wastewater.” Water Reuse Conference Proceed-
Reuse Symposium IV, August 2-7, 1987. AWWA Re ings. American Water Works Association. Denver, Colo
search Foundation. Denver, Colorado. rado.
Hoeller, C. S. Koschinsky, and D. Whitthuhn. 1999. “Iso Keller, W. 2002. “Reuse of Stormwater and Wastewater
lation of Enterohaemorragic Escherchia coli from Mu in the City of Calgary.” Presentation at CCME Workshop.
nicipal Sewage.” Lancet 353. (9169):2039. Calgary, Alberta, Canada. May 30-31, 2002.
Huang, C.H., and D.L. Sedlak. 2001. “Analysis of Estro Keswick, B.H., C.P. Gerba, S.L. Secor, and I. Sech.
genic Hormones in Municipal Wastewater Effluent and 1982. “Survival of Enteric Viruses and Indicator Bacteria
Surface Water using ELISA and GC/MS/MS.” Environ- in Groundwater.” Jour. Environ. Sci. Health, A17: 903
mental Toxicology and Chemistry. 20, 133-139. 912.
Huffman, Debra E., Theresa R. Slifko, and Joan B. Rose.
141
Klingel, K., C. Hohenadl, A. Canu, M. Albrecht, M. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.
Seemann, G. Mall, and R. Kandolf. 1992. “Ongoing En- 2002.”Report on Metropolitan’s Water Supplies.”
terovirus-induced Myocarditis is Associated with Persis www.mwd.dst.ca.us.
tent Heart Muscle Infection: Quantitative Analysis of Vi
rus Replication, Tissue Damage and Inflammation.” Pro- Michino, I.K., H. Araki, S. Minami, N. Takaya, M. Sakai,
ceeding of the National Academy of Science. 89, 314 A. Oho Miyazaki, and H. Yanagawa. 1999. “Massive
318. Outbreak of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 Infection in School
Children in Sakai City, Japan, Associated with consump
Koivunen, J., A. Siitonen, and H. Heinonen-Tanski. 2003. tion of White Radish Sprouts.” Am. J. Epidemiol. 150,
“Elimination of Enteric Bacteria in Biological-Chemical 787-796
Wastewater Treatment and Tertiary Filtration Units.”
Wat. Res. 37:690-698. Miller, D.G. “West Basin Municipal Water District: 5 De
signer (Recycled) Waters to Meet Customer’s Needs.”
Kolpin, D.W., E.T. Furlong, M.T. Meyer, E.M. Thurman, West Basin Municipal Water District.
S.D. Zaugg, L.B. Barber, and H.T. Buxton. 2002. “Phar-
maceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater Mitch, William, and David L. Sedlak. 2003. “Fate of N
Contaminants in U.S. Stream, 1999-2000 - A National nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) Precursors during Munici
Reconnaissance.” Env. Sci. and Tech., v. 36, no. 6, p. pal Wastewater Treatment.” Proceedings of the Ameri-
1202-1211. can Water Works Association Annaul Conference. Ana
heim, California. American Water Works Association,
Lund, E. 1980. “Health Problems Associated with the 2003.
Re-Use of Sewage: I. Bacteria, II. Viruses, III. Protozoa
and Helminths.” Working papers prepared for WHO Modifi, A.A., E. A. Meyer, P.M. Wallis, C.I. Chou, B.P.
Seminar on Health Aspects of Treated Sewage Re-Use. Meyer, S. Ramalingam, and B.M. Coffey. 2002. “The
1-5 June 1980. Algiers. effect of UV light on the Inactivation of Giardia lamblia
and Giardia muris cysts as determined by Animal Infec
Mahmoud. A.A. 2000. “Diseases Due to Helminths.” Prin- tivity Assay.” Water Research. 36:2098-2108.
ciples and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 5th Ed. pp.
2937-2986. Churchill Livingstone. Philadelphia, Pennsyl Murphy, D.F.. and G.E. Lee. 1979. “East Bay Discharg
vania. ers Authority Reuse Survey.” Proceedings of the Water
Reuse Symposium. Volume 2. pp. 1086-1098. March 25
Maier, R.N., Ian L. Pepper, and Charles P. Gerba. 2000. 30, 1979. AWWA Research Foundation. Denver, Colo
“Environmental Microbiology.” 1st Ed. Eds. R.M. Maier, rado.
I.L. Pepper, C.P. Gerba. Academic Press. Pp. 546-547.
San Diego, CA. Murphy, W.H.. and J.T. Syverton. 1958. “Absorption and
Translocation of Mammalian Viruses by Plants. II. Re
Mara, D., and S. Cairncross. 1989. Guidelines for the covery and Distribution of Viruses in Plants.” Virology,
Safe Use of Wastewater and Excreta in Agriculture and 6(3), 623.
Aquaculture: Measures for Public Health Protection.
World Health Organization. Geneva, Switzerland. Nagel, R.A., L.M. McGovern, P. Shields, G. Oelker, and
J.R. Bolton. 2001. “Using Ultraviolet (UV) Light to Re-
Martens, R.H., R.A. Morrell, J. Jackson, and C.A. move N-Nitrosodimethylamine from Recycled Water.”
Ferguson. 1998. “Managing Flows During Low Reclaimed WateReuse 2001 Symposium.
Water Demand Periods at Brevard County, Florida’s South
Central Regional Wastewater System.” Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences. 1983. Drinking Water
the Water Environment Federation, 71st Annual Confer- and Health. Volume 5. National Academy Press. Wash
ence and Exposition. October 3-7, 1998. Orlando, Florida. ington, D.C.
McGovern, P., and H.S. McDonald. 2003. “Endocrine National Communicable Disease Center. 1975. Morbid-
Disruptors.” Water Environment & Technology Journal. ity and Mortality, Weekly Report. National Communicable
Water Environment Federation. January 2003. Disease Center. 24(31): 261.
Metcalf & Eddy. 2002. Wastewater Engineering: Treat- National Research Council. 1998. “Issues in Potable Re
ment, Disposal, Reuse. Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc., use: The Viability of Augmenting Drinking Water Sup
New York, New York. plies with Reclaimed Water.” National Academy Press.
142
National Research Council. Washington, D.C. Pruss, A., and A. Havelaar.2001. “The Global Burden of
Disease Study and Applications in Water, Sanitation and
National Research Council. 1996. Use of Reclaimed Water Hygiene.” Water Quality: Standards, and Health IWA Pub
and Sludge in Food Crop Irrigation. National Academy lishing. Pp. 43-59. London, UK.
Press. Washington, D.C.
Purdom C.E., P.A. Hardiman, V.J. Bye, C.N. Eno, C.R.
National Research Council. 1994. Ground Water Recharge Tyler, and J.P. Sumpter. 1994. “Estrogenic Effects from
Using Waters of Impaired Quality. National Academy Sewage Treatment Works.” Chem Ecol 8: 275-285.
Press. Washington, D.C.
Putnam, L.B. 2002. “Integrated Water Resource Plan
National Water Research Institute and American Water ning: Balancing Wastewater, Water and Recycled Wa
Works Association. 2000. Ultraviolet Disinfection Guide- ter Requirements.” 2002 Annual Symposium –
lines for Drinking Water and Water Reuse. Fountain WateReuse Symposium. Orlando, Florida. September
Valley, California. 8-11, 2002.
Nellor, M.H., R.B. Baird, and J.R. Smyth. 1984. Health Quintero-Betancourt, W., A.L. Gennaccaro, T.M. Scott,
Effects Study – Final Report. County Sanitation Districts and J.B. Rose. 2003. “Assessment of Methods for De
of Los Angeles County. Whittier, California. tection of Infected Cryptosporidium Oocysts and Giardia
Cysts in Reclaimed Effluent.” Applied and Environmen
Olivieri, A. 2002. “Evaluation of Microbial Risk Assess tal Microbiology, p. 5380-5388. September 2003.
ment Methodologies for Nonpotable Reuse Applica
tions.” WEFTEC 2002 Seminar #112. Water Environment Regli, S., J.B. Rose, C.N. Haas, and C.P. Gerba. 1991.
Research Foundation. “Modeling the Risk from Giardia and Viruses in Drink
ing Water.” Journal AWWA. 83(11): 76-84.
Olivieri, A.W., R.C. Cooper, R.C. Spear, R.E. Danielson,
D.E. Block, and P.G. Badger. 1986. “Risk Assessment Riggs, J.L. 1989. “AIDS Transmission in Drinking Wa
of Waterborne Infectious Agents.” ENVIRONMENT 86: ter: No Threat.” Journal AWWA. 81(9): 69-70.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Devel-
opment and Application of Computer Techniques to Rose, J.B. 1986. “Microbial Aspects of Wastewater Re
Environmental Studies. Los Angeles, California use for Irrigation.” CRC Critical Reviews in Environ. Con-
trol. 16(3): 231-256.
Ortega, Y.R., C.R. Sterling, R.H. Gilman, M.A. Cama,
and F. Diaz. 1993. “Cyclospora species – A New Proto Rose, J.B., and R.P. Carnahan. 1992. Pathogen Removal
zoan Pathogen of Humans.” N. Engl. J. Med. 328, 1308 by Full Scale Wastewater Treatment. A Report to the
1312. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Univer
sity of South Florida. Tampa, Florida.
Pai, P., G. Grinnell, A. Richardson, and R. Janga. 1996.
“Water Reclamation in Clark County Sanitation District Rose, J.B., and C.P. Gerba. 1991. “Assessing Potential
Service Area.” Water Reuse Conference Proceedings. Health Risks from Viruses and Parasites in Reclaimed
American Water Works Association. Denver, Colorado. Water in Arizona and Florida, U.S.A.” Water Science
Technology. 23: 2091-2098.
Patterson, S.R., N.J. Ashbolt, and A. Sharma. 2001. “Mi
crobial Risks from Wastewater Irrigation of Salad Crops: Rose, J.B., C.N. Haas, and S. Regli. 1991. “Risk As
A Screening-Level Risk Assessment.” Wat. Environ. Res. sessment and Control of Waterborne Giardiasis.” Ameri-
72:667-671. can Journal of Public Health. 81(6): 709-713.
Payment, P. 1997. “Cultivation and Assay of Viruses.” Rose, J.B., D.E. Huffman, K. Riley, S.R. Farrah, J.O.
Manual of Environmental Microbiology pp. 72-78. ASM Lukasik, and C.L. Hamann. 2001. “Reduction of Enteric
Press. Washington, D.C. Microorganisms at the Upper Occoquan Sewage Author
ity Water Reclamation Plant.” Water Environment Re-
Pettygrove, G.S., and T. Asano. (ed.). 1985. Irrigation search. 73(6): 711-720.
with Reclaimed Municipal Wastewater - A Guidance
Manual. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, Michigan. Rose, J.B., and W. Quintero-Betancourt. 2002. Monitor-
ing for Enteric Viruses, Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and
Indicator Organisms in the Key Colony Beach Wastewa-
143
ter Treatment Plant Effluent. University of South Florida. Shadduck, J.A. 1989. Human Microsporidiosis and AIDS.
St. Petersburg, Florida. Rev. Infect Dis. Mar-Apr, 11:203-7.
Rose J.B., L. Dickson, S. Farrah, and R. Carnahan. 1996. Shadduck, J.A., and M. B. Polley. 1978. Some Factors
“Removal of Pathogenic and Indicator Microorganisms Influencing the in vitro infectivity and Replication on En-
by a Full-scale Water Reclamation Facility.” Wat. Res. cephalitozoon cuniculi. Protozoology 25:491-496.
30(11): 2785-2797.
Sheikh, B., and E. Rosenblum. 2002. “Economic Impacts
Rose, J.B., and T.R. Slifko. 1999. “Giardia, of Salt from Industrial and Residential Sources.” Proceed-
Cryptosoridium, and Cyclospora and their Impact on ings of the Water Sources Conference, Reuse, Re-
Foods: a Review.” J. of Food Protect. 62(9):1059-1070. sources, Conservation. January 27-30, 2002. Las Vegas,
Nevada.
Rose, J.B., S. Daeschner, D.R. Deasterling, F.C. Curriero,
S. Lele, and J. Patz. 2000. “Climate and Waterborne Dis- Sheikh, B., R.C. Cooper, and K.E. Israel. 1999. “Hygienic
ease Outbreaks.” J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. 92:77- Evaluation of Reclaimed Water used to Irrigate Food
87. Crops – a case study.” Water Science Technology 40:261-
267.
Rose, J.B., D.E. Huffman, K. Riley, S.R. Farrah, J.O.
Lukasik, and C.L. Harman. 2001. “Reduction of Enteric Sheikh, B., and R.C. Cooper. 1998. Recycled Water Food
Microorganisms at the Upper Occoquan Sewage Au Safety Study. Report to Monterey County Water Re
thority Water Reclamation Plant.” Wat. Environ. Res. sources Agency and Monterey Reg. Water Pollution Cont.
73(6):711-720. Agency.
Routledge, E.J., D. Sheahan, C. Desbrow, G.C. Brighty, Sheikh, B., E. Rosenblum, S. Kosower, and E. Hartling.
M. Waldock, and J.P. Sumpter. 1998. “Identification of 1998. “Accounting for the Benefits of Water Reuse.” Water
Estrogenic Chemicals in STW Effluent.2. In Vivo Re Reuse Conference Proceedings. American Water Works
sponses in Trout and Roach.” Environmental Science Association. Denver, Colorado.
and Technology, Vol. 32, No. 11.
Sheikh, B., C. Weeks, T.G. Cole, and R. Von Dohren.
Ryder, R.A. 1996. “Corrosivity and Corrosion Control of 1997. “Resolving Water Quality Concerns in Irrigation of
Reclaimed Water Treatment and Distribution Systems.” Pebble Beach Golf Course Greens with Recycled Wa
Water Reuse Conference Proceedings. American Water ter.” Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation,
Works Association. Denver, Colorado. 70th Annual Conference and Exposition. October 18-22,
1997. Chicago, Illinois.
Sagik, B.P., B.E. Moore, and C.A. Sorber. 1978. “Infec
tious Disease Potential of Land Application of Waste Shuval, H.I., A. Adin, B. Fattal, E. Rawitz, and P. Yekutiel.
water.” State of Knowledge in Land Treatment of Waste- 1986. “Wastewater Irrigation in Developing Countries Ð
water. Volume 1, pp. 35-46. Proceedings of an Interna Health Effects and Technical Solutions.” World Bank
tional Symposium. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Cold Technical Paper Number 51. The World Bank. Wash
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Hanover, ington, D.C.
New Hampshire.
Slifko, Theresa R. Invited – Verbal. 2002. “New Irradiation
Sanders, W., and C. Thurow. Undated. Water Conserva- Technologies for the Water Industry: Efficacy and Appli
tion in Residential Development: Land-Use Tech-niques. cation of High-energy Disinfection using Electron Beams.
American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Ser Emerging Contaminants Roundtable,” Florida Water Re
vice Report No. 373. sources Annual Conference, Orlando, FL. March 24-26
Schanze, T., and C.J. Voss. 1989. “Experimental Wet Slifko, T.R. May 2001. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
lands Application System Research Program.” Pre South Florida, College of Marine Science, St. Peters
sented at the 62nd Annual Conference of the Water burg, FL. Development and Evaluation of a Quantita
Pollution Control Federation. San Francisco, California. tive Cell Culture Assay for Cryptosporidium Disinfection
Studies (this shows both UV and ebeam inactivation for
Sepp, E. 1971. The Use of Sewage for Irrigation – A Crypto).
Literature Review. California Department of Public Health.
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering. Berkeley, California.
144
Slifko, T.R., H.V. Smith, and J.B. Rose. 2000. Emerging water Reclamation and Reuse Using Enteric Virus Moni
Parasite Zoonoses associated with Water and Food. In toring Data.” Water Environmental Research, Vol. 70, No.
ternational Journal for Parasitology. 30:1379-1393. 1, pp. 39-51.
Smith H.V., and J.B. Rose. 1998. “Waterborne Teltsch, B., and E. Katzenelson. 1978. “Airborne Enteric
Cryptosporidiosis Current Status.” Parasitology Today. Bacteria and Viruses from Spray Irrigation with Waste
14(1):14-22. water.” Applied Environ. Microbiol., 32:290-296.
Smith, T., and D. Brown. 2002. “Ultraviolet Treatment Teltsch, B., S. Kidmi, L. Bonnet, Y. Borenzstajn-Roten,
Technology for the Henderson Water Reclamation Fa and E. Katzenelson. 1980. “Isolation and Identification
cility.” Proceedings of the Water Sources Conference, of Pathogenic Microorganisms at Wastewater-Irrigated
Reuse, Resources, Conservation. January 27-30, 2002. Fields: Ratios in Air and Wastewater.” Applied Environ.
Las Vegas, Nevada. Microbiol., 39: 1184-1195.
Snyder S.A., D.L. Villeneuve, E.M. Snyder, and J.P. Ternes T.A., M. Stumpf, J. Mueller, K. Haberer, R.D.
Giesy. 2001. “Identification and Quantification of Estro Wilken, and M. Servos. 1999. “Behavior and Occurrence
gen Receptor Agonists in Wastewater Effluents.” Environ. of Estrogens in Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants – I.
Sci. Technol. 35(18), 3620-3625. Investigations in Germany, Canada and Brazil.” Sci Total
Environ 225: 81-90.
Sobsey, M. 1978. Public Health Aspects of Human En-
teric Viruses in Cooling Waters. Report to NUS Corpo Tomowich, D. 2002. “UV Disinfection for the Protection
ration. Pittsburgh, PA. and Use of Resource Waters.” Proceedings of the Florida
Water Resources Conference. March 2002. Orlando,
Solley, W.B., R.R. Pierce, and H.A. Perlman, 1998. Es- Florida.
timated Use of Water in the United States in 1995. U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 1200. Denver, Colorado. USDA, http://www.foodsafty.gov.
Sorber, C.A., and K.J. Guter. 1975. “Health and Hygiene U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. “Perchlor-
Aspects of Spray Irrigation.” American Jour. Public ate Environmental Contamination: Toxicological Review
Health, 65(1): 57-62. and Risk Characterization.” USEPA Office of Research
and Development. January 16, 2002.
State of California. 1987. Report of the Scientific Advi-
sory Panel on Groundwater Recharge with Reclaimed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Methods
Water. Prepared for the State of California, State Water for Organic Chemical Analysis of Municipal and Indus-
Resources Control Board. Department of Water Re trial Wastewater.
sources, and Department of Health Services. Sacramento,
California. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Wastewa-
ter Treatment Facilities and Effluent Quantities by State.
State of California. 1978. Wastewater Reclamation Cri- Washington, D.C.
teria. Title 22, Division 4, California Code of Regula
tions. State of California, Department of Health Services. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Rainfall
Sanitary Engineering Section. Berkeley, California. Induced Infiltration Into Sewer Systems, Report to Con-
gress. EPA 430/09-90-005. EPA Office of Water (WH
Stecchini, M.L., and C. Domenis. 1994. “Incidence of 595). Washington, D.C.
Aeromonas Species in Influent and Effluent of Urban
Wastewater Purification Plants.” Lett. Appl. Microbiol. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Process
19:237-239. Design Manual: Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewa-
ter, Supplement on Rapid Infiltration and Overland Flow,
Swift, J., R. Emerick, F. Soroushian, L.B. Putnam, and EPA 625/1-81-013a EPA Center for Environmental Re
R. Sakaji. 2002. “Treat, Disinfect, Reuse.” Water Envi- search Information. Cincinnati, Ohio.
ronment & Technology, 14 (11): 21-25.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Handbook
Tanaka, H., T. Asano. E.D. Schroeder, and G. for Sampling and Sample Preservation of Water and
Tchobanoglous. 1998. “Estimation of the Safety of Waste Wastewater. EPA/600/4-82/029, NTIS No. PB83
145
124503. Environmental Monitoring and Support Labora Facility Plan Development Reliability Assessment Guid
tory. Cincinnati, Ohio. ance.”
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Process Water Environment Federation. 2003. Summary of WERF
Design Manual: Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewa- Workshop on Indicators for Pathogens in Wastewater,
ter. EPA 625/1-81-013. EPA Center for Environmental Stormwater and Biosolids, San Antonio, TX, December
Research Information. Cincinnati, Ohio. 11-12, 2003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980b. Waste- Water Environment Federation. 1998. Design of Munici-
water Aerosols and Disease. Proceedings of Sympo pal Wastewater Treatment Plants. WEF Manual of Prac
sium. September 19-21, 1979. EPA-600/9-80-028, NTIS tice No. 8, Fourth Edition, Water Environment Federa
No. PB81-169864. U.S. Environmental Protection tion, Alexandria, Virginia.
Agency, Health Effects Research Laboratory. Cincin
nati, Ohio. Water Environment Federation. 1996. Wastewater Disin-
fection Manual of Practice FD-10. Water Environment
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979a. Hand- Federation. Alexandria, Virginia.
book for Analytical Quality Control in Water and Waste-
water Laboratories. EPA-600/4-79-019. Environmental Water Environment Research Foundation. 2003. Sum-
Monitoring and Support Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio. mary of WERF Workshop on Indicators for Pathogens in
Wastewater, Stormwater, and Biosolids. San Antonio,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Methods Texas. December 11-12, 2003. www.werf.org
for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes. EPA-600/
4-79-020, NTIS No. PB84-128677. Environmental Moni Water Environment Research Foundation. 1995. Disin-
toring and Support Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio. fection Comparison of UV Irradiation to Chlorination:
Guidance for Achieving Optimal UV Performance (Final
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality Report). Project 91-WWD-1. Water Environment Research
Criteria for Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Foundation. Alexandria, Virginia.
Agency. Washington, D.C.
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1989. Water Reuse
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Design (Second Edition). Manual of Practice SM-3. Water Pollu
Criteria for Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid Systems and tion Control Federation. Alexandria, Virginia.
Component Reliability. EPA-430-99-74-01. EPA Office
of Water Program Operations, Municipal Construction Withers, B., and S. Vipond. 1980 Irrigation Design and
Division. Washington, D.C. Practice. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, New York.
University of California Division of Agriculture and Natu Wolk, D.M., C.H. Johnson, E.W. Rice, M.M. Marshall,
ral Resources. 1985. Turfgrass Water Conservation K.F. Grahn, C.B. Plummer, and C.R. Sterling. 2000. “A
Projects: Summary Report. Washington, D.C. Spore Counting Method and Cell Culture Model for Chlo
rine Disinfection Studies of Encephalitozoon syn. Septata
Vickers, A., 2001. Handbook of Water Use and Conser- intestinali.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology,
vation. Waterplow Press. Amherst, Massachusetts. 66:1266-1273.
Walker-Coleman, L.; D.W. York; and P. Menendez. 2002. Woodside, G.D., and Wehner, M.P. 2002. “Lessons
“Protozoan Pathogen Monitoring Results for Florida’s Learned from the Occurrence of 1,4-dioxane at Water
Reuse Systems.” Proceedings of Symposium XVII. Factory 21 in Orange County Califorina.” Proceedings of
WateReuse Association. Orlando, Florida. the 2002 Water Reuse Annual Symposium. Alexandria,
Virginia. WateReuse Association, 202: CD-ROM.
Waller, T. 1980. Sensitivity of Encephalitozoon cuniculi
to Various Temperatures, Disinfectants and Drugs. Lab. York, D.W., and L. Walker-Coleman. 1999. “Is it Time for
Anim. Sci. 13:277-285. Pathogen Standards?” Proceedings of the 1999 Florida
Water Resources Conference. AWWA, FPCA, and
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2003. “Wa FW&PCOA. Tallahassee, Florida.
ter Reclamation and Reuse Program General Sewer and
146
York, D.W., L. Walker-Coleman, and P. Menendez. 2002.

“Pathogens in Reclaimed Water: The Florida Experience.”
Proceedings of Water Sources 2002. AWWA and WEF.
Las Vegas, NV.
York, D.W., and L. Walker-Coleman. 2000. “Pathogen

Standards for Reclaimed Water.” Water Environment &
Technology. 12(1): 58.
York, D.W., and L. Walker-Coleman. 1999. “Is it Time for

Pathogen Standards?” Proceedings of the 1999 Florida
Water Resources Conference. AWWA, FPCA and
FW&PCOA. April 25-28, 1999. Tallahassee, Florida.
York, D.W., and N.R. Burg. 1998. “Protozoan Pathogens:

A Comparison of Reclaimed Water and Other Irrigation
Waters.” Proceedings of Water Reuse 98. AWWA and
WEF. Lake Buena Vista, Florida.
Young, R., K. Thompson, and C. Kinner. 1997. “Manag

ing Water Quality Objectives in a Large Reclaimed Wa
ter Distribution System.” Proceedings for the Water En-
vironment Federation, 70th Annual Conference and Expo-
sition. October 18-22, 1997. Chicago, Illinois.3
Young, R.E., K. Lewinger, and R. Zenik. 1987. “Waste

water Reclamation – Is it Cost Effective? Irvine Ranch
Water District – A Case Study.” Proceedings of the Wa-
ter Reuse Symposium IV. August 2-7, 1987. AWWA Re
search Foundation. Denver, Colorado.
147
148
CHAPTER 4
Water Reuse Regulations and Guidelines in the U.S.
Most reuse programs operate within a framework of regu- recommended guidelines that may aid in the develop-
lations that must be addressed in the earliest stages of ment of more comprehensive state or even federal stan-
planning. A thorough understanding of all applicable regu- dards for water reuse. Water reuse outside the U.S. is
lations is required to plan the most effective design and discussed in Chapter 8.
operation of a water reuse program and to streamline
implementation. 4.1 Inventory of Existing State
Regulations and Guidelines
Regulations refer to actual rules that have been enacted
and are enforceable by government agencies. Guidelines, The following inventory of state reuse regulations and
on the other hand, are not enforceable but can be used in guidelines is based on a survey of all states conducted
the development of a reuse program. Currently, there are specifically for this document. Regulatory agencies in
no federal regulations directly governing water reuse prac- all 50 states were contacted and information was ob-
tices in the U.S. Water reuse regulations and guidelines tained concerning their regulations governing water re-
have, however, been developed by many individual use. All of the information presented in this section is
states. As of November 2002, 25 states had adopted considered current as of November 2002.
regulations regarding the reuse of reclaimed water, 16
states had guidelines or design standards, and 9 states California and Florida compile comprehensive invento-
had no regulations or guidelines. In states with no spe- ries of reuse projects by type of reuse application. These
cific regulations or guidelines on water reclamation and inventories are compiled by the California Water Re-
reuse, programs may still be permitted on a case-by- sources Control Board (CWRCB) in Sacramento and
case basis. the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) in Tallahassee, respectively. The inventories are
Regulations and guidelines vary considerably from state available for viewing or downloading from each agency’s
to state. States such as Arizona, California, Colorado, website. Florida’s 2001 Reuse Inventory shows a total
Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, New of 461 domestic wastewater treatment facilities with
Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, permitted capacities of 0.1 mgd (4.4 l/s) or more that
Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming have devel- produce reclaimed water. These treatment facilities serve
oped regulations or guidelines that strongly encourage 431 reuse systems and provide 584 mgd (25,600 l/s) of
water reuse as a water resources conservation strat- reclaimed water for beneficial purposes. The total reuse
egy. These states have developed comprehensive regu- capacity associated with these systems is 1,151 mgd
lations or guidelines specifying water quality require- (50,400 l/s) (FDEP, 2002). California’s May 2000 Munici-
ments, treatment processes, or both, for the full spec- pal Wastewater Reclamation Survey, estimated a total of
trum of reuse applications. The objective in these states 358 mgd (14,800 l/s) treated municipal wastewater was
is to derive the maximum resource benefits of the re- being reused. This represents a 50 percent increase from
claimed water while protecting the environment and pub- the survey undertaken by CWRCB in 1987. The waste-
lic health. Other states have developed water reuse regu- water is treated at 234 treatment plants and is being re-
lations with the primary intent of providing a disposal al- used at approximately 4,840 sites (CWRCB, 2000). Fig-
ternative to discharge to surface waters, without consid- ures 4-1 and 4-2 show the types of reuse occurring in
ering the management of reclaimed water as a resource. California and Florida, respectively.
This section provides an inventory of the various state

water reuse regulations throughout the U.S. and updates
149
Figure 4-1. California Water Reuse by Type Most states do not have regulations that cover all poten-
(Total 358 mgd) tial uses of reclaimed water. Arizona, California, Colo-
rado, Florida, Hawaii, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, and Washington have extensive regulations
or guidelines that prescribe requirements for a wide range
of end uses of the reclaimed water. Other states have
regulations or guidelines that focus upon land treatment
of wastewater effluent, emphasizing additional treatment
or effluent disposal rather than beneficial reuse, even
though the effluent may be used for irrigation of agricul-
tural sites, golf courses, or public access lands.
Based on the inventory, current regulations and guide-

lines may be divided into the following reuse catego-
ries:
Unrestricted urban reuse – irrigation of areas in which

public access is not restricted, such as parks, play-
Source: Adapted from California Environmental Protection grounds, school yards, and residences; toilet flush-
Agency
ing, air conditioning, fire protection, construction, or-
namental fountains, and aesthetic impoundments.
Figure 4-2. Florida Water Reuse by Type
(Total 584 mgd) Restricted urban reuse – irrigation of areas in which
public access can be controlled, such as golf
courses, cemeteries, and highway medians.
Agricultural reuse on food crops – irrigation of food

crops which are intended for direct human consump-
tion, often further classified as to whether the food
crop is to be processed or consumed raw.
Agricultural reuse on non-food crops – irrigation of

fodder, fiber, and seed crops, pasture land, com-
mercial nurseries, and sod farms.
Unrestricted recreational reuse – an impoundment

of water in which no limitations are imposed on body-
contact water recreation activities.
Source: 2001 Florida Water Reuse Inventory
Restricted recreational reuse – an impoundment of
reclaimed water in which recreation is limited to fish-
Every 5 years, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) com-
ing, boating, and other non-contact recreational ac-
piles an estimate of national reclaimed water use that is
tivities.
entered in a national database system and publishes its
findings in a national circular, Estimated Use of Water in
Environmental reuse – reclaimed water used to cre-
the United States. The 1995 publication estimated that
ate manmade wetlands, enhance natural wetlands,
approximately 983 mgd (43,060 l/s) of the effluent dis-
and sustain or augment stream flows.
charged in the U.S. was released for beneficial reuse, an
increase of 55 mgd (2,410 l/s) from the 1990 estimate
Industrial reuse – reclaimed water used in industrial
(Perlman et al., 1998). More current estimates were not
facilities primarily for cooling system make-up wa-
available from the USGS at the time of this update, but it
ter, boiler-feed water, process water, and general
is anticipated that the 2000 publication will be available
washdown.
at the time these guidelines are published.
150
Groundwater recharge – using either infiltration ba- Table 4-2 shows the number of states with regulations
sins, percolation ponds, or injection wells to recharge or guidelines for each type of reuse. The category of
aquifers. unrestricted urban reuse has been subdivided to indi-
cate the number of states that have regulations pertain-
Indirect potable reuse – the intentional discharge of ing to urban reuse not involving irrigation.
highly treated reclaimed water into surface waters
or groundwater that are or will be used as a source States with regulations or guidelines pertaining to the
of potable water. use of reclaimed water for the following unrestricted ur-
ban reuse categories are:
Table 4-1 (on the following page) provides an overview
of the current water reuse regulations and guidelines Toilet Flushing – Arizona, California, Florida, Ha-
by state and by reuse category. The table identifies those waii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina,
states that have regulations, those with guidelines, and Texas, Utah, and Washington
those states that currently do not have either. Regula-
tions refer to actual rules that have been enacted and Fire Protection – Arizona, California, Florida, Ha-
are enforceable by government agencies. Guidelines, on waii, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, and
the other hand, are not enforceable but can be used in Washington
the development of a reuse program.
Construction Purposes – Arizona, California, Florida,
The majority of current state regulations and guidelines Hawaii, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah,
pertain to the use of reclaimed water for urban and ag- and Washington
ricultural irrigation. At the time of the survey, the only
states that had specific regulations or guidelines regard- Landscape or Aesthetic Impoundments – Arizona,
ing the use of reclaimed water for purposes other than California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Nevada, New
irrigation were Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Wash-
Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, North ington
Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and
Washington. The 1995 Substitute Senate Bill 5605, “Re- Street Cleaning – Arizona, California, Florida, Ha-
claimed Water Act,” passed in the State of Washington, waii, North Carolina, and Washington
states that reclaimed water is no longer considered
wastewater (Van Riper et al., 1998).
Table 4-2. Number of States with Regulations or Guidelines for Each Type of Reuse Application
Type of Reuse Number of States

Unrestricted Urban 28
Irrigation 28
Toilet Flushing 10
Fire Protection 9
Construction 9
Landscape Impoundment 11
Street Cleaning 6
Restricted Urban 34
Agricultural (Food Crops) 21
Agricultural (Non-food Crops) 40
Unrestricted Recreational 7
Restricted Recreational 9
Environmental (Wetlands) 3
Industrial 9
Groundwater Recharge (Nonpotable Aquifer) 5
Indirect Potable Reuse 5
151
Table 4-1. Summary of State Reuse Regulations and Guidelines
Unrestricted Urban
Change from 1992
Agricultural Reuse
Agricultural Reuse
No Regulations or
Restricted Urban
Non-Food Crops
Industrial Reuse
Indirect Potable
(2)
Environmental
Guidelines for
(1)
Groundwater
Recreational
Recreational
Unrestricted
Regulations
Food Crops
Water Reuse
Guidelines
Restricted
Recharge
Guidelines
Reuse
Reuse
Reuse
Reuse
Reuse
Reuse
State
Alabama z N z z
Alaska z NR z
Arizona z U z z z z z
Arkansas z N z z z z
California
(3) z U z z z z z z z z z
Colorado z (4) GR z z z z z z
Connecticut z N
Delaware z GR z z z
Florida z U z z z z z z z z
Georgia z U z z z
Hawaii z U z z z z z z z z
Idaho z N z z z z
Illinois z U z z z
Indiana z U z z z z
Iowa z NR z z
Kansas z N z z z z
Kentucky z N
Louisiana z N
Maine z N
Maryland z N z z
Massachusetts z NG z z z z z
Michigan z N z z
Minnesota z N
Mississippi z N
Missouri z N z z
Montana z GR z z z z
Nebraska z GR z z
Nevada z GR z z z z z z
New Hampshire z N
New Jersey z RG z z z z z
New Mexico z N z z z z
New York z N z
North Carolina z U z z z
North Dakota z U z z z
Ohio z NG z z z
Oklahoma z GR z z z
Oregon z N z z z z z z z
Pennsylvania z NG z
Rhode Island z N
South Carolina z GR z z z
South Dakota z N z z z z
Tennessee z N z z z
Texas z U z z z z z z z
Utah z U z z z z z z z
Vermont z N z
Virginia z N
Washington z U z z z z z z z z z z
West Virginia z N z z
Wisconsin z N z
Wyoming z U z z z z
(1) Specific regulations on reuse not adopted: however, reclamation may be approved on a
case-by-case basis
(2) N - no change NR - no guidelines or regulations to
regulations
U - updated guidelines or regulations NG - no guidelines or regulations to
guidelines
GR - guidelines to regulations RG - regulations to guidelines
(3) Has regulations for landscape irrigation excluding residential irrigation; guidelines cover
all other uses
152
It is important to understand that because a state does limit on turbidity is usually specified to monitor the per-
not have specific guidelines or regulations for a particu- formance of the treatment facility.
lar type of reuse as defined in this chapter, it does not
mean that the state does not allow that type of reuse This discussion on reclaimed water quality and treatment
under other uses. Also, some states allow consideration requirements is based on the regulations from the follow-
of reuse options that are not addressed within their ex- ing states: Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Nevada,
isting guidelines or regulations. For example, Florida’s Texas, and Washington. These regulations were chosen
rules governing water reuse enable the state to permit because these states provide a collective wisdom of suc-
other uses, if the applicant demonstrates that public cessful reuse programs and long-term experience.
health will be protected.
4.1.1.1 Unrestricted Urban Reuse
4.1.1 Reclaimed Water Quality and
Treatment Requirements Unrestricted urban reuse involves the use of reclaimed
water where public exposure is likely in the reuse appli-
Requirements for water quality and treatment receive cation, thereby necessitating a high degree of treatment.
the most attention in state reuse regulations. States that In general, all states that specify a treatment process
have water reuse regulations or guidelines have set stan- require a minimum of secondary treatment and treat-
dards for reclaimed water quality and/or specified mini- ment with disinfection prior to unrestricted urban reuse.
mum treatment requirements. Generally, where unre- However, the majority of states require additional lev-
stricted public exposure is likely in the reuse applica- els of treatment that may include oxidation, coagula-
tion, wastewater must be treated to a high degree prior tion, and filtration. Texas does not specify the type of
to its application. Where exposure is not likely, how- treatment processes required and only sets limits on
ever, a lower level of treatment is usually accepted. The the reclaimed water quality. Table 4-3 shows the re-
most common parameters for which water quality limits claimed water quality and treatment requirements for
are imposed are biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), unrestricted urban reuse.
total suspended solids (TSS), and total or fecal coliform
counts. Total and fecal coliform counts are generally used Where specified, limits on BOD range from 5 mg/l to 30
as indicators to determine the degree of disinfection. A mg/l. Texas requires that BOD not exceed 5 mg/l (monthly
Table 4-3. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
Arizona California Florida Haw aii Ne vada Te xas Was hington
Secondary
Secondary Oxidized, Oxidized,
treatment, Oxidized, Secondary
treatment, coagulated, (1) coagulated,
Treatm ent filtration, and filtered, and treatment and NS
filtration, and filtered, and filtered, and
high- level disinfected disinfection
disinfection disinfected disinfected
disinfection
20 mg/l
BOD5 NS NS NS 30 mg/l 5 mg/l 30 mg/l
CBOD5
TSS NS NS 5.0 mg/l NS NS NS 30 mg/l
2 NTU (Avg) 2 NTU (Avg) 2 NTU (Avg)

Turbidity NS 2 NTU (Max) NS 3 NTU
5 NTU (Max) 5 NTU (Max) 5 NTU (Max)
Fe cal Total Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal Total
None 75% of
2.2/100 ml 2.2/100 ml 2.2/100 ml 20/100 ml 2.2/100 ml
detectable samples below
(Avg) (Avg) (Avg) (Avg) (Avg)
Coliform (Avg) detection
23/100 ml 23/100 ml
23/100 ml 25/100 ml 23/100 ml 75/100 ml 23/100 ml
(Max in 30 (Max in 30
(Max) (Max) (Max) (Max) (Max)
days) days)
(1)
NS - Not specified by state regulations
153
average) except when reclaimed water is used for land- more than 5 percent of the time within a 24-hour period
scape impoundments. In that case, BOD is limited to 10 and not to exceed 10 NTU at any time. For the latter,
mg/l. Nevada, on the other hand, requires that BOD not turbidity is not to exceed 0.2 NTU more than 5 percent of
exceed 30 mg/l prior to unrestricted urban reuse. Limits the time within a 24-hour period and not to exceed 0.5
on TSS vary from 5 mg/l to 30 mg/l. Florida requires a NTU at any time.
TSS limit of 5.0 mg/l prior to disinfection and Washing-
ton requires that TSS not exceed 30 mg/l. At this time, no states have set limits on certain patho-
genic organisms for unrestricted urban reuse. However,
Average fecal and total coliform limits range from non- Florida does require monitoring of Giardia and
detectable to 20/100 ml. Higher single sample fecal and Cryptosporidium with sampling frequency based on
total coliform limits are allowed in several state regula- treatment plant capacity. For systems less than 1 mgd
tions. Florida requires that 75 percent of the fecal coliform (44 l/s), sampling is required one time during each 5-year
samples taken over a 30-day period be below detectable period. For systems equal to or greater than 1 mgd (44 l/
levels, with no single sample in excess of 25/100 ml, s), sampling is required one time during each 2-year pe-
while Texas requires that no single fecal coliform count riod. Samples are to be taken following the disinfection
exceed 75/100 ml. process.
In general and where specified, limits on turbidity range 4.1.1.2 Restricted Urban Reuse
from 2 to 5 NTU. Most of the states require an average
turbidity limit of 2 NTU and a not-to-exceed limit of 5 Restricted urban reuse involves the use of reclaimed
NTU, although Hawaii’s guidelines identify a not-to-ex- water where public exposure to the reclaimed water is
ceed limit of 2 NTU. Florida requires continuous on-line controlled; therefore, treatment requirements may not
monitoring of turbidity as an indicator that the TSS limit be as strict as for unrestricted urban reuse. Six states,
of 5.0 mg/l is being met. No limit is specified but turbid- which regulate both unrestricted and restricted urban
ity setpoints used in Florida generally range from 2 to reuse, adjusted requirements downward for the restricted
2.5 NTU. California specifies different turbidity require- category. Florida imposes the same requirements on
ments for wastewater that has been coagulated and both unrestricted and restricted urban access reuse.
passed through natural and undisturbed soils or a bed of Table 4-4 shows the reclaimed water quality and treat-
filter media, as well as wastewater passed through mem- ment requirements for restricted urban reuse.
branes. For the first, turbidity is not to exceed 5 NTU for
Table 4-4. Restricted Urban Reuse
Arizona California Flor ida Haw aii Ne vada Te xas Was hington
Secondary
Secondary Secondary – treatment, Secondary
Tr e atm e nt O x idiz ed and (1) O x idiz ed and
treatment and 23, oxidized, filtration, and treatment and NS
disinfected disinfected
disinfection and disinfected high-level disinfection
disinfection
20 mg/l
BOD5 NS NS NS 30 mg/l 20 mg/l 30 mg/l
CBOD 5
TSS NS NS 5 mg/l NS NS NS 30 mg/l
2 NTU (Avg)
Turbidity NS NS NS 2 NTU (Max) NS 3 NTU
5 NTU (Max)
Fe cal Total Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal Total
75% of
200/100 ml 23/100 ml 23/100 ml 23/100 ml 200/100 ml 23/100 ml
samples below
(Avg) (Avg) (Avg) (Avg) (Avg) (Avg)
Colifor m detection
240/100 ml
800/100 ml 25/100 ml 200/100 ml 240/100 ml 800/100 ml 240/100 ml
(Max in 30
(Max) (Max) (Max) (Max) (Max) (Max)
days)
(1)
154
Table 4-5. Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
A r iz o n a C alifo r n ia Flo r id a Haw aii Ne vad a T e xas W as h in g to n
Sec ondary
Sec ondary O x idiz ed, O x idiz ed,
treatm ent, O x idiz ed, Sec ondary
T r e atm e n t treatm ent, c oagulated, c oagulated,
filtration, and filtered, and treatm ent and N S (1)
filtration, and filtered, and filtered, and
high-lev el dis infec ted dis infec tion
dis infec tion dis infec ted dis infec ted
dis infec tion
20 m g/l
BOD5 NS NS NS 30 m g/l 5 m g/l 30 m g/l
C BO D 5
T SS NS NS 5 m g/l NS NS NS 30 m g/l
2 N T U (Av g) 2 N T U (Av g) 2 N T U (Av g)

T u r b id ity NS 2 N T U (M ax ) NS 3 NTU
5 N T U (M ax ) 5 N T U (M ax ) 5 N T U (M ax )
Fe cal T o tal Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal T o tal
N one 75% of
2.2/100 m l 2.2/100 m l 200/100 m l 20/100 m l 2.2/100 m l
detec table s am ples below
(Av g) (Av g) (Av g) (Av g) (Av g)
C o lifo r m (Av g) detec tion
23/100 m l 23/100 m l
23/100 m l 25/100 m l 400/100 m l 75/100 m l 23/100 m l
(M ax in 30 (M ax in 30
(M ax ) (M ax ) (M ax ) (M ax ) (M ax )
day s ) day s )
(1)
In general, the states require a minimum of secondary or Washington is the only state that sets a limit on turbidity
biological treatment followed by disinfection prior to re- for restricted urban reuse with an average turbidity limit
stricted urban reuse. Florida requires additional levels of of 2 NTU and a not-to-exceed at any time limit of 5 NTU.
treatment with filtration and possibly coagulation prior to
restricted urban reuse. As in unrestricted urban reuse, At this time, no states have set limits on certain patho-
Texas does not specify the type of treatment processes genic organisms for restricted urban reuse. However,
required and only sets limits on the reclaimed water qual- Florida does require monitoring of Giardia and
ity. Cryptosporidium with sampling frequency as noted in
Section 4.1.1.1.
Where specified, limits on average BOD range from 20
mg/l to 30 mg/l. Florida and Texas require that BOD not 4.1.1.3 Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops
exceed 20 mg/l, while Nevada and Washington require
that BOD not exceed 30 mg/l prior to restricted urban The use of reclaimed water for irrigation of food crops is
reuse. Limits on TSS vary from 5 mg/l to 30 mg/l. Florida prohibited in some states, while others allow irrigation
requires that TSS not exceed 5.0 mg/l, while Washing- of food crops with reclaimed water only if the crop is to
ton requires that TSS not exceed 30 mg/l. As in unre- be processed and not eaten raw. Nevada allows only
stricted urban reuse, for those states that do not specify surface irrigation of fruit or nut bearing trees. Treatment
limitations on BOD or TSS, a particular level of treat- requirements range from secondary treatment in Ne-
ment is usually specified. vada for irrigation of processed food crops, to oxida-
tion, coagulation, filtration, and disinfection in Arizona,
Average fecal coliform limits range from non-detectable California, Florida, Hawaii, and Washington. Table 4-5
to 200/100 ml, with some states allowing higher single shows the reclaimed water quality and treatment require-
sample fecal coliform limits. As for unrestricted urban ments for irrigation of food crops.
reuse, Florida requires that 75 percent of the fecal coliform
samples taken over a 30-day period be below detectable Most states require a high level of treatment when re-
levels, with no single sample in excess of 25/100 ml. claimed water is used for edible crops, especially those
Arizona and Texas require that no single fecal coliform that are to be consumed raw. As in other reuse applica-
count exceed 800/100 ml. tions, however, existing regulations on treatment and
155
water quality requirements vary from state to state and cent of the time, and not exceed a maximum of 10 NTU
depend largely on the type of irrigation employed and at any time for reclaimed water that has been coagu-
the type of food crop being irrigated. For example, for lated and passed through natural undisturbed soils or a
foods consumed raw, Washington requires that the re- bed of filter media and is irrigated on food crops to be
claimed water be oxidized and disinfected when sur- consumed raw. California requires that the turbidity not
face irrigation is used, with the mean total coliform count exceed 0.2 NTU more than 5 percent of the time and not
not to exceed 2.2/100 ml. When spray irrigation is uti- exceed a maximum of 0.5 NTU at any time for reclaimed
lized, Washington requires that the reclaimed water be water that has been passed through a membrane and is
oxidized, coagulated, filtered, and disinfected, with the irrigated on food crops to be consumed raw. Hawaii re-
mean total coliform count not to exceed 2.2/100 ml. For quires that the detectable turbidity not exceed 5 NTU for
processed foods, Washington requires only oxidation more than 15 minutes and never exceed 10 NTU prior to
and disinfection regardless of the type of irrigation, with filtration for reclaimed water used for spray irrigation of
a 7-day mean total coliform count of 240/100 ml. food crops.
Where specified, limits on BOD range from 5 mg/l to 30 At this time, no states have set limits on certain patho-
mg/l. Texas requires a monthly average BOD limit of 5 genic organisms for agricultural reuse on food crops.
mg/l when reclaimed water will be used to irrigate un- Florida does require monitoring of Giardia and
processed food crops. In Texas, spray irrigation is not Cryptosporidium with sampling frequency as noted in
permitted on foods that may be consumed raw, and only Section 4.1.1.1.
irrigation types that avoid reclaimed water contact with
edible portions of food crops are acceptable. Florida 4.1.1.4 Agricultural Reuse – Non-food Crops
requires that the annual average CBOD not exceed 20
mg/l after secondary treatment with filtration and high- The use of reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation of
level disinfection, while Texas requires that the BOD not non-food crops presents a reduced opportunity of hu-
exceed 30 mg/l (monthly average) when the reclaimed man exposure to the water, resulting in less stringent
water is treated using a pond system and is to be used treatment and water quality requirements than other
to irrigate food crops undergoing processing. forms of reuse. In the majority of the states, secondary
treatment followed by disinfection is required, although
Limits on TSS vary from 5 mg/l to 30 mg/l. Florida re- Hawaii also requires filtration. Table 4-6 shows the re-
quires that TSS not exceed 5.0 mg/l in any one sample claimed water quality and treatment requirements for
prior to disinfection, while Washington requires that the irrigation of non-food crops.
TSS not exceed 30 mg/l (monthly average). In Florida,
direct contact (spray) irrigation of edible crops that will Where specified, limits on BOD range from 5 mg/l to 30
not be peeled, skinned, cooked, or thermally-processed mg/l. Texas requires that BOD not exceed 5 mg/l
before consumption is not allowed except for tobacco (monthly average) except when reclaimed water is used
and citrus. Indirect contact methods (ridge and furrow, for landscape impoundments, in which case BOD is lim-
drip, subsurface application system) can be used on ited to 10 mg/l. Florida requires that the annual average
any type of edible crop. California allows for direct con- CBOD not exceed 20 mg/l after secondary treatment and
tact irrigation with the edible portion of the crop. basic disinfection. Washington and Nevada require that
BOD not exceed 30 mg/l as a monthly average. Limits on
Average fecal and total coliform limits range from non- TSS vary from 20 mg/l to 30 mg/l. Florida requires that
detectable to 200/100 ml. Arizona requires no detect- the annual average TSS not exceed 20 mg/l except when
able limit for fecal coliform when reclaimed water will be a subsurface application is used, in which case the single
used for spray irrigation of food crops. Florida requires sample TSS limit is 10 mg/l. Washington requires a
that 75 percent of the fecal coliform samples taken over monthly mean of 30 mg/l TSS.
a 30-day period be below detectable levels, with no
single sample in excess of 25/100 ml. Conversely, Ne- Average fecal and total coliform limits range from 2.2/100
vada requires a maximum fecal coliform count of less ml for Hawaii to 200/100 ml for Arizona and Florida. There
than 400/100 ml with only surface irrigation of fruit and are several states that do not require disinfection if cer-
nut bearing trees. Again, some states allow higher single tain buffer requirements are met. For example, Nevada
sample coliform counts. requires no disinfection with a minimum buffer zone of
800 feet for spray irrigation of non-food crops. Some states
Limits on turbidity range from 2 to 10 NTU. For example, allow higher single sample coliform counts. For example,
California requires that turbidity not exceed 2 NTU within Arizona requires that no single fecal coliform count ex-
a 24-hour period, not exceed 5 NTU more than 5 per-
156
Table 4-6. Agricultural Reuse - Non-Food Crops
A r iz o n a C alifo r n ia Flo r id a Haw aii Ne vad a T e xas W as h in g to n
Sec ondary
Sec ondary Sec ondary -23, O x idiz ed, Sec ondary
treatm ent, (1 ) O x id iz e d and
T r e atm e n t treatm ent and O x idiz ed, and filtered, and treatm ent and NS
bas ic dis infec ted
dis infec tion dis infec ted dis infec ted dis infec tion
dis infec tion
20 m g/l
BOD5 NS NS NS 30 m g/l 5 m g/l 30 m g/l
C BO D 5
T SS NS NS 20 m g/l NS NS NS 30 m g/l
2 N T U (Av g)
T u r b id ity NS NS NS 2 N T U (M ax ) NS 3 NTU
5 N T U (M ax )
Fe cal T o tal Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal T o tal
200/100 m l 23/100 m l 200/100 m l 2.2/100 m l 200/100 m l 20/100 m l 23/100 m l

(Av g) (Av g) (Av g) (Av g) (Av g) (Av g) (Av g)
C o lifo r m
240/100 m l
800/100 m l 800/100 m l 23/100 m l 400/100 m l 75/100 m l 240/100 m l
(M ax in 30
(M ax ) (M ax ) (M ax ) (M ax ) (M ax ) (M ax )
day s )
(1)
ceed 4,000/100 ml when reclaimed water will be used for Nevada requires secondary treatment with disinfection,
irrigation of pasture for non-dairy animals. while California requires oxidation, coagulation, clarifica-
tion, filtration, and disinfection. Where specified, limits
At this time, Hawaii, Texas, and Washington require lim- on BOD range from 5 mg/l to 30 mg/l. Texas requires
its on turbidity for reclaimed water used for agricultural that BOD not exceed 5 mg/l as a monthly average, while
reuse on non-food crops. Washington requires that the Washington requires that BOD not exceed 30 mg/l prior
turbidity not exceed 2 NTU as an average and not ex- to unrestricted recreational reuse. Washington is the only
ceed 5 NTU at any time. Texas requires a turbidity limit state to set a limit on TSS and requires 30 mg/l or less
of 3 NTU for reclaimed water that will be used for irriga- as a monthly average. All states, except Texas, require
tion of pastures for milking animals. Hawaii, on the other that the median total coliform count not exceed 2.2/100
hand, requires the detectable turbidity not exceed 5 NTU ml, with no single sample to exceed 23/100 ml. Texas
for more than 15 minutes and never exceed 10 NTU requires that the median fecal coliform count not ex-
prior to filtration for reclaimed water used for spray irri- ceed 20/100 ml, with no single sample to exceed 75/
gation of pastures for milking and other animals. 100 ml.
At this time, no states have set limits on certain patho- Limits on turbidity generally range from 2 NTU to 5 NTU.
genic organisms for agricultural reuse on non-food Most of the states require an average turbidity limit of 2
crops. NTU and a not-to-exceed limit of 5 NTU. California speci-
fies different turbidity requirements for wastewater that
4.1.1.5 Unrestricted Recreational Reuse has been coagulated and passed through natural and
undisturbed soils or a bed of filter media as well as
As with unrestricted urban reuse, unrestricted recre- wastewater passed through membranes. For the first,
ational reuse involves the use of reclaimed water where turbidity is not to exceed 5 NTU for more than 5 percent
public exposure is likely, thereby necessitating a high of the time within a 24-hour period and not to exceed 10
degree of treatment. Only 4 of the 7 states (California, NTU at any time. For the latter, turbidity is not to ex-
Nevada, Texas, and Washington) have regulations or ceed 0.2 NTU more than 5 percent of the time within a
guidelines pertaining to unrestricted recreational reuse. 24-hour period and not to exceed 0.5 NTU at any time.
Table 4-7 shows the reclaimed water quality and treat- Texas requires a turbidity limit of 3 NTU, and Nevada
ment requirements for unrestricted recreational reuse. does not specify a limit on turbidity.
157
Table 4-7. Unrestricted Recreational Reuse
A r iz o n a C alifo r n ia Flo r id a Haw aii Ne vad a T e x as W as h in g t o n
O x idiz e d,
O x idiz e d,
c oag ulate d, Se c on dar y
(1 ) c oag ulate d,
T r e a tm e n t NR c la rified , NR NR tr eatm en t an d NS
filter ed , an d
filter ed , an d dis infe c tion
dis in fec ted
dis in fec ted
(2 )
BOD 5 NR NS NR NR 30 m g/l 5 m g/l 3 0 m g /l
T SS NR NS NR NR NS NS 3 0 m g/l
2 N T U (Av g ) 2 N T U (Av g )
T u r b id ity NR NR NR NS 3 NTU
5 N T U (Max ) 5 N T U (Max )
T o tal Fe c al Fe cal Fe cal
2 .2/1 00 m l 2.2 /10 0 m l 2 .2/1 00 m l

2 0 /1 0 0 m l ( A v g )
C o lif o r m NR ( Av g) NR NR (Av g ) ( Av g)
23/1 00 m l ( M a x 23/100 m l 75 /10 0 m l 2 3 /1 0 0 m l

in 3 0 da y s ) (Max ) ( M ax ) (M ax )
(1) NR - Not regulated by the state

(2) NS - Not specified by state regulations
Table 4-8. Restricted Recreational Reuse
Ar iz o n a C alifo r n ia Flo r id a Haw aii Ne vad a T e xas Was h in g to n

Sec ondary
Sec ondary -23, O x idiz ed, Sec ondary
Tr e atm e nt treatment, (1 ) O x idiz ed and
ox idiz ed, and NR filtered, and treatment and NS
filtration, and dis infec ted
dis infec ted dis infec ted dis infec tion
dis infec tion
BOD5 NS
(2 )
NS NR NS 30 mg/l 20 mg/l 30 mg/l
T SS NS NS NR NS NS NS 30 mg/l
2 NT U (Av g) 2 NT U (Av g)
T u r b id ity NS NR 2 NT U (Max ) NS NS
5 NT U (Max ) 5 N T U (Max )
Fe cal T o tal Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal T o tal
None
2.2/100 ml 200/100 ml 200/100 ml
detec table 2.2/100 ml (Av g) 2.2/100 ml (Av g)
Colifor m NR (Av g) (Av g) (Av g)
(Av g)
23/100 ml 23/100 ml (Max in 23/100 ml 23/100 ml 800/100 ml
23/100 ml (Max )
(Max ) 30 day s ) (Max ) (Max ) (Max )
At this time, no states have set limits on certain patho- reational reuse since the public exposure to the reclaimed
genic organisms for unrestricted recreational reuse. water is less likely. Six of the 7 states (Arizona, Califor-
nia, Hawaii, Nevada, Texas, and Washington) have regu-
4.1.1.6 Restricted Recreational Reuse lations pertaining to restricted recreational reuse. With
the exception of Arizona and Hawaii, which require filtra-
State regulations and guidelines regarding treatment and tion, the remaining states require secondary treatment
water quality requirements for restricted recreational re- with disinfection. Texas does not specify treatment pro-
use are generally less stringent than for unrestricted rec- cess requirements. Table 4-8 shows the reclaimed wa-
158
ter quality and treatment requirements for restricted rec- pertaining to the use of reclaimed water for creation of
reational reuse. artificial wetlands and/or the enhancement of natural
wetlands. Table 4-9 shows the reclaimed water quality
Nevada, Texas, and Washington have set limits on BOD and treatment requirements for environmental reuse.
ranging from 20 mg/l to 30 mg/l as a monthly average.
Only Washington has set limits on TSS of 30 mg/l as a Florida has comprehensive and complex rules governing
monthly average. Arizona requires no detectable fecal the discharge of reclaimed water to wetlands. Treatment
coliform in 4 of the last 7 daily samples and a single and disinfection levels are established for different types
sample maximum of 23/100 ml. California, Hawaii, Ne- of wetlands, different types of uses, and the degree of
vada, and Washington require that the median total public access. Most wetland systems in Florida are used
coliform count not exceed 2.2/100 ml. Texas, on the for tertiary wastewater treatment; and wetland creation,
other hand, requires that the median fecal coliform count restoration, and enhancement projects can be consid-
not exceed 200/100 ml and that a single sample not ered reuse. Washington also specifies different treatment
exceed 800/100 ml. requirements for different types of wetlands and based
on the degree of public access. General compliance re-
Limits on turbidity are specified for Arizona, Hawaii, and quirements of 20 mg/l BOD and TSS, 3 mg/l total Kjeldahl
Washington. Arizona and Washington require a turbid- nitrogen (TKN), and 1 mg/l total phosphorus must be met
ity of less than 2 NTU as an average and a not-to-exceed for all categories.
maximum of 5 NTU. Hawaii specifies an effluent turbid-
ity requirement of 2 NTU. California, Nevada, and Texas 4.1.1.8 Industrial Reuse
have not specified turbidity requirements for restricted
recreational reuse. Five of the 7 states (California, Florida, Hawaii, Texas,
and Washington) have regulations or guidelines pertain-
At this time, no states have set limits on certain patho- ing to industrial reuse of reclaimed water. Table 4-10
genic organisms for restricted recreational reuse. shows the reclaimed water quality and treatment require-
ments for industrial reuse.
4.1.1.7 Environmental - Wetlands
Reclaimed water quality and treatment requirements vary
A review of existing reuse regulations shows only 2 of based on the final use of the reclaimed water and expo-
the 7 states (Florida and Washington) have regulations sure potential (see Appendix A, Table A-8 for a sum-
Table 4-9. Environmental Reuse - Wetlands
A r iz o n a C alif o r n ia Flo r id a (1 ) Haw aii Ne vad a T e xas W as h in g to n
O x idiz ed ,
(2) Ad v an c ed
T r e atm e n t NR NR NR NR NR c oagulated,
treatm ent
and dis infec ted
BOD5 NR NR 5 m g/l C BO D 5 NR NR NR 20 m g/l
T SS NR NR 5 m g/l NR NR NR 20 m g/l
Fe cal
2.2/100 m l
C o lifo r m NR NR NS
(3)
NR NR NR (Av g)
23/100 m l
(M ax )
N ot to ex c eed
T o t al c hr onic
NR NR 2 m g/l NR NR NR
A m m o n ia s tandards for
fres hw ater
T o t al
NR NR 1 m g/l NR NR NR 1 m g/l
Ph o s p h o r u s
(1) Florida requirements are for discharge of reclaimed water to receiving wetlands
159
Table 4-10. Industrial Reuse(1)
Ar izona Califor nia Flor ida Haw aii Ne vada Te xas Was hington
Sec ondary
O xidiz ed O xidiz ed
(2) treatment O xidiz ed and
Tr e atm e nt NR and and NR NS
and basic dis infec ted
disinfec ted disinfec ted
dis infec tion
BOD5 NR NS
(3)
20 mg/l NS NR 20 mg/l NS
TSS NR NS 20 mg/l NS NR --- NS
Tur bidity NR NS NS NS NR 3 NTU NS
Total Fe cal Fe cal Fe cal Total
23/100 ml 200/100 ml 23/100 ml 200/100 ml
23/100 ml (Av g)
(Av g) (Av g) (Av g) (Av g)
Colifor m NR NR
240/100 ml
800/100 ml 200/100 ml 800/100 ml 240/100 ml
(Max in 30
(Max ) (Max ) (Av g) (Av g)
days)
(1) All state requirements are minimum values. Additional treatment may be required depending on expected
public exposure. Additional regulations for industrial systems are contained in Appendix A.
mary of each state’s regulations). For example, Califor- fers, that is not their primary intent and experience sug-
nia has different requirements for the use of reclaimed gests current practices are protective of raw water sup-
water as cooling water, based on whether or not a mist is plies.
created. If a mist is created, oxidation, coagulation, fil-
tration, and disinfection are required and total coliform Based on a review of the existing reuse regulations and
limits of 2.2/100 ml as a weekly median must be met. If guidelines, California, Florida, Hawaii, and Washington
a mist is not created, only oxidation and disinfection are have regulations or guidelines for reuse with the spe-
required and total coliform limits of 23/100 ml as a weekly cific intent of groundwater recharge of aquifers. Table
median must be met. 4-11 shows reclaimed water quality and treatment re-
quirements for groundwater recharge via rapid-rate ap-
4.1.1.9 Groundwater Recharge plication systems.
Spreading basins, percolation ponds, and infiltration ba- For groundwater recharge, California and Hawaii do not
sins have a long history of providing both effluent dis- specify required treatment processes and determine re-
posal and groundwater recharge. Most state regulations quirements on a case-by-case basis. The California and
allow for the use of relatively low quality water (i.e., sec- Hawaii Departments of Health Services base the evalua-
ondary treatment with basic disinfection) based on the tion on all relevant aspects of each project including treat-
fact that these systems have a proven ability to provide ment provided, effluent quality and quantity, effluent or
additional treatment. Traditionally, potable water supplies application spreading area operation, soil characteristics,
have been protected by requiring a minimum separa- hydrogeology, residence time, and distance to withdrawal.
tion between the point of application and any potable Hawaii does require a groundwater monitoring program.
supply wells. These groundwater systems are also typi-
cally located so that their impacts to potable water with- Washington has extensive guidelines for the use of re-
drawal points are minimized. While such groundwater reclaimed water for direct groundwater recharge of
charge systems may ultimately augment potable aqui- nonpotable aquifers. It requires Class A reclaimed wa-
160
Table 4-11. Groundwater Recharge (1)
Ar iz on a Califor nia (2) Flor ida Haw aii Ne vada Te xas Was hin gto n
Sec ondary O x idiz ed,

T r e atm e n t (3) treatment and c oagulated,
NR NR NR
bas ic filtered, and
dis infec tion dis infec ted
(4)
BOD5 NR NS NR NR 5 mg/l
TSS NR 10.0 mg/l NR NR 5 mg/l
2 NT U (Av g)
Tu r bid ity NR Cas e-by -c as e NS Cas e-by -c as e NR NR
bas is bas is 5 NT U (Max )
T otal
2.2/100 ml
Co lifo r m NR NS NR NR (Av g)
23/100 ml
(Max )
T otal
NR 12 mg/l NR NR NS
Nitr og e n
(1) All state requirements are for groundwater recharge via rapid-rate application systems. Additional regulations
for recharge of potable aquifers are contained in Section 4.1.1.10 and Appendix A.
(2) Groundwater recharge in California and Hawaii is determined on a case-by-case basis
ter defined as oxidized, coagulated, filtered, and disin- river systems today. Many domestic wastewater treat-
fected. Total coliform is not to exceed 2.2/100 ml as a ment plants discharge treated effluent to surface waters
7-day median and 23/100 ml in any sample. Weekly upstream of intakes for domestic water supply treatment
average BOD and TSS limits are set at 5 mg/l. Turbidity plants. Additionally, many types of beneficial reuse
is not to exceed 2 NTU as a monthly average and 5 projects inadvertently contribute to groundwater augmen-
NTU in any sample. Additionally, groundwater monitor- tation as an unintended result of the primary activity. For
ing is required and is based on reclaimed water quality example, irrigation can replenish groundwater sources
and quantity, site-specific soil and hydrogeologic char- that will eventually be withdrawn for use as a potable
acteristics, and other considerations. Washington also water supply. Indirect potable reuse systems, as defined
specifies that reclaimed water withdrawn for nonpotable here, are distinguished from typical groundwater recharge
purposes can be withdrawn at any distance from the systems and surface water discharges by both intent
point of injection and at any time after direct recharge. and proximity to subsequent withdrawal points for po-
table water use. Indirect potable reuse involves the in-
Florida requires that TSS not exceed 5.0 mg/l in any tentional introduction of reclaimed water into the raw water
sample, be achieved prior to disinfection, and that the supply for the purposes of increasing the total volume of
total nitrogen in the reclaimed water be less than 12 mg/ water available for potable use. In order to accomplish
l. Florida also requires continuous on-line monitoring of this objective, the point at which reclaimed water is intro-
turbidity; however, no limit is specified. duced into the environment must be selected to ensure
it will flow to the point of withdrawal. Typically the design
4.1.1.10 Indirect Potable Reuse of these systems assumes there will be little to no addi-
tional treatment in the environment after discharge, and
Indirect potable reuse involves the use of reclaimed wa- all applicable water quality requirements are met prior to
ter to augment surface water sources that are used or release of the reclaimed water.
will be used for public water supplies or to recharge ground-
water used as a source of domestic water supply. Un- Based on a review of the existing reuse regulations and
planned indirect potable water reuse is occurring in many guidelines, 4 of the 7 states (California, Florida, Hawaii,
161
and Washington) have regulations or guidelines pertain- Class I waters are also considered as indirect potable
ing to indirect potable reuse. For groundwater recharge reuse. Surface water discharges located more than 24
of potable aquifers, most of the states require a pretreat- hours travel time to Class I waters are not considered
ment program, public hearing requirements prior to project indirect potable reuse. For discharge to Class I surface
approval, and a groundwater monitoring program. Florida waters or water contiguous to or tributary to Class I wa-
and Washington require pilot plant studies to be performed. ters (defined as a discharge located less than or equal to
In general, all the states that specify treatment processes 4 hours travel time from the point of discharge to arrival
require secondary treatment with filtration and disinfec- at the boundary of the Class I water), secondary treat-
tion. Washington is the only state that specifies the waste- ment with filtration, high-level disinfection, and any addi-
water must be treated by reverse osmosis. California and tional treatment required to meet TOC and TOX limits is
Hawaii do not specify the type of treatment processes required. The reclaimed water must meet primary and
required and determine requirements on a case-by-case secondary drinking water standards, except for asbes-
basis. tos, prior to discharge. TSS must not exceed 5.0 mg/l in
any sample prior to disinfection and total nitrogen cannot
Most states specify reclaimed water quality limitations exceed 10 mg/l as an annual average. The reclaimed
for TSS, nitrogen, total organic carbon (TOC), turbidity, water must also meet TOC limitations of 3 mg/l as a
and total coliform. Florida requires that TSS not exceed monthly average and 5 mg/l in any single sample. Outfalls
5.0 mg/l in any sample and be achieved prior to disinfec- for surface water discharges are not to be located within
tion. Florida and Washington require the total nitrogen in 500 feet (150 meters) of existing or approved potable
the reclaimed water to be less than 10 mg/l. Washington water intakes within Class I surface waters.
has a limit of 1 mg/l for TOC, while Florida’s limit is set
at 3 mg/l as a monthly average. Florida also requires an 4.1.2 Reclaimed Water Monitoring
average limit of 0.2 mg/l for total organic halides (TOX). Requirements
Turbidity limits vary greatly where specified. For example,
Washington specifies a limit of 0.1 NTU as a monthly Reclaimed water monitoring requirements vary greatly
average and 0.5 NTU as a maximum at any time. Florida from state to state and again depend on the type of re-
requires continuous on-line monitoring of turbidity; how- use. For unrestricted urban reuse, Oregon requires sam-
ever, no limit is specified. Fecal coliform limits also vary pling for coliform daily, while for agricultural reuse of
greatly from state to state. Washington requires a limit non-food crops, sampling for total coliform is only re-
of 1/100 ml for total coliform as a weekly median and a quired once a week. Oregon also requires hourly moni-
not to exceed limit of 5/100 ml in any one sample for toring of turbidity when a limit on turbidity is specified.
direct injection into a potable aquifer. The states that
specify reclaimed water quality limitations require the re- For unrestricted and restricted urban reuse, as well as
claimed water to meet drinking water standards. agricultural reuse on food crops, Florida requires the
continuous on-line monitoring of turbidity and chlorine
Most states specify a minimum time the reclaimed water residual. Even though no limits on turbidity are speci-
must be retained underground prior to being withdrawn fied in Florida, continuous monitoring serves as an on-
as a source of drinking water. Washington requires that line surrogate for suspended solids. In addition, Florida
reclaimed water be retained underground for a minimum requires that the TSS limit be achieved prior to disinfec-
of 12 months prior to being withdrawn as a drinking water tion and has a minimum schedule for sampling and test-
supply. Several states also specify minimum separation ing flow, pH, chlorine residual, dissolved oxygen, TSS,
distances between a point of recharge and the point of CBOD, nutrients, and fecal coliform based on system
withdrawal as a source of drinking water. Florida requires capacity. Florida also requires an annual analysis of pri-
a 500-foot (150-meter) separation distance between the mary and secondary drinking water standards for re-
zone of discharge and potable water supply well. Wash- claimed water used in irrigation for facilities greater than
ington requires the minimum horizontal separation dis- 100,000 gpd (4.4 l/s). Monitoring for Giardia and
tance between the point of direct recharge and point of Cryptosporidium must also be performed with frequency
withdrawal as a source of drinking water supply to be dependent on system capacity. Other states determine
2,000 feet (610 meters). Table 4-12 shows the reclaimed monitoring requirements on a case-by-case basis de-
water quality and treatment requirements for indirect po- pending on the type of reuse.
table reuse.
4.1.3 Treatment Facility Reliability
Florida includes discharges to Class I surface waters
(public water supplies) as indirect potable reuse. Dis- Some states have adopted facility reliability regulations
charges less than 24 hours travel time upstream from or guidelines in place of, or in addition to, water quality
162
Table 4-12. Indirect Potable Reuse (1)
A r iz o n a C alif o r n ia (2 ) Flo r id a Ha w aii Ne va d a T e xas W as h in g t o n

A dv a nc ed O x id iz e d ,
tr ea tm e nt, c o ag ula te d, filte r e d,
(3 )
T r e atm e n t NR filtr a tio n, an d NR NR r e v e r s e - o s m o s is
h ig h- lev e l tr ea te d, a nd
d is infe c tio n d is in fec te d
BOD 5 NR 20 m g /l NR NR 5 m g /l
T SS NR 5.0 m g /l NR NR 5 m g /l
T u r b id it y (4 ) 0.1 N T U ( A v g )
NR NS NR NR
0.5 N T U ( M ax )
T o tal T o tal
C a s e- by - c as e C as e-by -
C o lif o r m NR NR NR
ba s is A ll s a m p le s c a s e b a s is 1/1 0 0 m l ( A v g )
le s s th a n
de te c tion
5/1 0 0 m l ( M ax )
T o t al
NR 10 m g /l NR NR 1 0 m g/l
Nit r o g e n
3 m g /l ( A v g )
T OC NR NR NR 1 .0 m g/l
5 m g /l ( M ax )
P r im ar y C om p lia nc e
an d C o m p lia n c e w ith
w ith m o s t
NR NR NR m os t pr im ar y a nd
S e co n d a r y pr im ar y an d
s e c o nd a r y
Stan d ar d s s ec on d ar y
(1) Florida requirements are for the planned use of reclaimed water to augment surface water sources that will be
used as a source of domestic water supply
(2) Indirect potable reuse in California and Hawaii is determined on a case-by-case basis
requirements. Generally, requirements consist of alarms Alarm (failure and power loss) and short-term (24-
warning of power failure or failure of essential unit pro- hour) storage or disposal provisions and standby re-
cesses, automatic standby power sources, emergency placement equipment
storage, and the provision that each treatment process
be equipped with multiple units or a back-up unit. Alarm (failure and power loss) and long-term (20-day)
storage or disposal provisions
Articles 8, 9, and 10 of California’s Title 22 regulations
provide design and operational considerations covering Florida requires Class I reliability of treatment facilities
alarms, power supply, emergency storage and disposal, when reclaimed water is used for irrigation of food crops
treatment processes, and chemical supply, storage, and and for restricted and unrestricted urban reuse. Class I
feed facilities. For treatment processes, a variety of reli- reliability requires multiple treatment units or back-up units
ability features are acceptable in California. For example, and a secondary power source. In addition, a minimum
for all biological treatment processes, one of the follow- of 1 day of reject water storage is required to store re-
ing is required: claimed water of unacceptable quality for additional treat-
ment. Florida also requires staffing at the water reclama-
Alarm (failure and power loss) and multiple units cation facility 24 hours/day, 7 days/week or 6 hours/day, 7
pable of producing biologically oxidized wastewater days/week. The minimum staffing requirement may be
with one unit not in operation reduced to 6 hours/day, 7 days/week if reclaimed water
163
is delivered to the reuse system only during periods when Presently, Florida is the only state with regulations or
a qualified operator is present, or if additional reliability guidelines for aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) of
features are provided. reclaimed water. ASR systems using reclaimed water
are required to meet the technical and permitting re-
Florida has also established minimum system sizes for quirements of Florida’s Department of Environmental
treatment facilities to aid in assuring the continuous pro- Protection underground injection control program and
duction of high-quality reclaimed water. Minimum sys- obtain an underground injection control construction and
tem size for unrestricted and restricted urban reuse and operation permit in addition to the domestic wastewater
for use on edible crops is 0.1 mgd (4.4 l/s). A minimum permit. Water recovered from the ASR system must
system size is not required if reclaimed water will be meet the performance standards for fecal coliform as
used only for toilet flushing and fire protection uses. specified for high-level disinfection. Specifically, the fe-
cal coliform limits require 75 percent of samples to be
Other states that have regulations or guidelines regard- below detection limits, and any single sample is not to
ing treatment facility reliability include Georgia, Hawaii, exceed 25/100 ml before use in a reuse system.
Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, Preapplication treatment and disinfection requirements
Washington, and Wyoming. Washington’s guidelines vary depending on the class of groundwater receiving
pertaining to treatment facility reliability are similar to injected reclaimed water, but may be as stringent as to
California’s regulations. Georgia, Massachusetts, North require that reclaimed water meet primary and second-
Carolina, Oregon, and Wyoming require that multiple ary drinking water standards and TOC and TOX limits
treatment units be provided for all essential treatment prior to injection. Monitoring of the reclaimed water prior
processes and a secondary or back-up power source to injection and after recovery from the ASR system is
be supplied. required. In addition, a groundwater monitoring plan
must be implemented before placing the ASR system
4.1.4 Reclaimed Water Storage into operation. The monitoring plan must be designed
to verify compliance with the groundwater standards and
Current regulations and guidelines regarding storage to monitor the performance of the ASR system. As part
requirements are primarily based upon the need to limit of the monitoring plan, a measure of inorganics con-
or prevent surface water discharge and are not related centration (such as chlorides or total dissolved solids)
to storage required to meet diurnal or seasonal varia- and specific conductance of the water being injected,
tions in supply and demand. Storage requirements vary the groundwater, and the recovered water are required
from state to state and are generally dependent upon to be monitored. In some cases, an extended zone of
geographic location and site conditions. For example, discharge for the secondary drinking water standards
Florida requires a minimum storage volume equal to 3 and for sodium can be approved.
days of the average design flow, while South Dakota
requires a minimum storage volume of 210 days of the Injection wells and recovery wells used for ASR are to
average design flow. The large difference in time is pri- be located at least 500 feet from any potable water sup-
marily due to the high number of non-irrigation days due ply well. For potable water supply wells that are not public
to freezing temperatures in the northern states. In addi- water supply wells, a smaller setback distance may be
tion to the minimum storage requirement, Florida also approved if it can be demonstrated that confinement ex-
requires that a water balance be performed based on a ists such that the system will not adversely affect the
1-in-10 year rainfall recurrence interval and a minimum quantity or quality of the water withdrawn from the po-
of 20 years of climatic data to determine if additional table water supply well. If the ASR well is located in the
storage is required beyond the minimum requirement of same aquifer as a public supply well, the permitting agen-
3 days. cies may require a detailed analysis of the potential for
reclaimed water entry into the public supply well.
Most states that specify storage requirements do not
differentiate between operational and seasonal storage, 4.1.5 Application Rates
with the exception of Delaware, Georgia, and Ohio,
which require that both operational and wet weather stor- When regulations specify application or hydraulic load-
age be considered. The majority of states that have storing rates, the regulations generally pertain to land ap-
age requirements in their regulations or guidelines replication systems that are used primarily for additional
quire that a water balance be performed on the reuse wastewater treatment for disposal rather than reuse.
system, taking into account all inputs and outputs of When systems are developed chiefly for the purpose of
water to the system based on a specified rainfall recur- land treatment and/or disposal, the objective is often to
rence interval. dispose of as much effluent on as little land as possible;
164
thus, application rates are often far greater than irrigation 4.1.7 Setback Distances for Irrigation
demands and limits are set for the maximum hydraulic
loading. On the other hand, when the reclaimed water is Many states have established setback distances or buffer
managed as a valuable resource, the objective is to ap- zones between reuse irrigation sites and various facili-
ply the water according to irrigation needs rather than ties such as potable water supply wells, property lines,
maximum hydraulic loading, and application limits are residential areas, and roadways. Setback distances vary
rarely specified. depending on the quality of reclaimed water and the
method of application. For example, Nevada requires a
Many states do not have any specific requirements re- 400- to 800-foot (120- to 240-meter) buffer, depending on
garding reclaimed water irrigation application rates, as disinfection level, for a spray irrigation system, but when
these are generally based on site conditions; however, surface irrigation is used as the application method, no
most states emphasizing beneficial reuse recommend buffer is required. For restricted and unrestricted urban
a maximum hydraulic loading rate of no more than 2 inches reuse and irrigation of food crops, Florida requires a 75-
per week (5.1 cm per week). Delaware’s regulations re- foot (23-meter) setback to potable water supply wells;
quire that the maximum design wastewater loading be but for agricultural reuse on non-food crops, Florida re-
limited to 2.5 inches per week (6.4 cm per week). Florida quires a 500-foot (150-meter) setback to potable water
recommends a maximum annual average of 2 inches per supply wells and a 100-foot (30-meter) setback to prop-
week (5.1 cm per week). Those states emphasizing land erty lines. Florida will allow reduced setback distances
treatment or disposal may recommend a hydraulic load- for agricultural reuse on non-food crops if additional dis-
ing rate of up to 4 inches per week (10.2 cm per week). infection and reliability are provided or if alternative ap-
plication techniques are used. Colorado recommends a
In addition to hydraulic loading rates, some states also 500-foot (150-meter) setback distance to domestic sup-
have limits on nitrogen loading. For example, Alabama, ply wells and a 100-foot (30-meter) setback to any irriga-
Arkansas, and Tennessee all require that the effluent tion well regardless of the quality of the reclaimed water.
from the reuse system have a nitrate-nitrogen concen-
tration of 10 mg/l or less, while Missouri and Nebraska Due to the high degree of treatment required, Oregon
both require that the nitrogen loading not exceed the and Nevada do not require setback distances when re-
nitrogen uptake of the crop. claimed water is used for unrestricted urban reuse or irri-
gation of food crops. However, setback distances are
4.1.6 Groundwater Monitoring required for irrigation of non-food crops and restricted
urban reuse. In Nevada, the quality requirements for re-
Groundwater monitoring programs associated with reclaimed water are based not only on the type of reuse,
claimed water irrigation generally focus on water qual- but also on the setback distance. For example, for re-
ity in the surficial aquifer and are required by Alabama, stricted urban reuse and a 100-foot (30-meter) buffer zone,
Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Mas- Nevada requires that the reclaimed water have a mean
sachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, fecal coliform count of no more than 23/100 ml and not
South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Vir- exceed a maximum daily number of 240/100 ml. How-
ginia, and Wisconsin. In general, these groundwater ever, with no buffer zone, the reclaimed water must have
monitoring programs require that 1 well be placed hy- a mean fecal coliform count of no more than 2.2/100 ml
draulically upgradient of the reuse site to assess back- and not exceed a maximum daily number of 23/100 ml.
ground and incoming groundwater conditions within the
aquifer in question. In addition 2 wells must be placed 4.2 Suggested Guidelines for
hydraulically downgradient of the reuse site to monitor Water Reuse
compliance. Florida normally requires a minimum of 3
monitoring wells at each reuse site. For reuse projects Table 4-13 presents suggested wastewater treatment
involving multiple sites, Florida may allow monitoring at processes, reclaimed water quality, monitoring, and set-
selected example sites. Some states also require that a back distances for various types of water reuse. Sug-
well be placed within each reuse site. South Carolina’s gested guidelines are presented for the following cat-
guidelines suggest that a minimum of 9 wells be placed egories:
in golf courses (18 holes) that irrigate with reclaimed
water. Sampling parameters and frequency of sampling Urban Reuse
are generally considered on a case-by-case basis.
Restricted Access Area Irrigation
165
Agricultural Reuse - Food Crops Attainability
-Food crops not commercially processed
-Commercially processed food crops and Sound engineering practice
surface irrigation of orchards and vineyards
These guidelines are not intended to be used as defini-
Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops tive water reclamation and reuse criteria. They are in-
-Pasture for milking animals and fodder, fiber, tended to provide reasonable guidance for water reuse
and seed crops opportunities, particularly in states that have not devel-
oped their own criteria or guidelines.
Recreational Impoundments
Adverse health consequences associated with the re-
Landscape Impoundments use of raw or improperly treated wastewater are well
documented. As a consequence, water reuse regula-
Construction Uses tions and guidelines are principally directed at public
health protection and generally are based on the con-
Industrial Reuse trol of pathogenic microorganisms for nonpotable re-
use applications and control of both health significant
Environmental Reuse microorganisms and chemical contaminants for indirect
potable reuse applications. These guidelines address
Groundwater Recharge health protection via suggested wastewater treatment
-Spreading or injection into aquifers not used unit processes, reclaimed water quality limits, and other
for public water supply controls (setback distances, etc.).
Indirect Potable Reuse

Both treatment processes and water quality limits are
-Spreading into potable aquifers
recommended for the following reasons:
-Injection into potable aquifers
-Augmentation of surface supplies

Water quality criteria that include the use of surro-
gate parameters may not adequately characterize
These guidelines apply to domestic wastewater from mu- reclaimed water quality.
nicipal or other wastewater treatment facilities having a
limited input of industrial waste. The suggested guide- A combination of treatment and quality requirements
lines are predicated principally on water reclamation and known to produce reclaimed water of acceptable
reuse information from the U.S. and are intended to ap- quality obviate the need to monitor the finished wa-
ply to reclamation and reuse facilities in the U.S. Local ter for certain constituents, e.g., some health-sig-
social, economic, regulatory, technological, and other con- nificant chemical constituents or pathogenic micro-
ditions may limit the applicability of these guidelines in organisms.
some countries (see Chapter 8). It is explicitly stated
that the direct application of these suggested guidelines Expensive, time-consuming, and, in some cases,
will not be used by the United States Agency for Interna- questionable monitoring for pathogenic organisms,
tional Development (USAID) as strict criteria for funding. such as viruses, is eliminated without compromising
health protection.
The suggested treatment processes, reclaimed water
quality, monitoring frequency, and setback distances are Treatment reliability is enhanced.
based on:
It would be impractical to monitor reclaimed water for all
Water reuse experience in the U.S. and elsewhere of the chemical constituents and pathogenic organisms
of concern, and surrogate parameters are universally
Research and pilot plant or demonstration study data accepted. In the U.S., total and fecal coliforms are the
most commonly used indicator organisms in reclaimed
Technical material from the literature water as a measure of disinfection efficiency. While
coliforms are adequate indicator organisms for many
Various states’ reuse regulations, policies, or guide- bacterial pathogens, they are, by themselves, poor indi-
lines (see Appendix A) cators of parasites and viruses. The total coliform analy-
sis includes enumeration of organisms of both fecal and
nonfecal origin, while the fecal coliform analysis is spe-
166
Table 4-13. Suggested Guidelines for Water Reuse 1
Reclaimed
Types of Reclaimed Setback
Treatment 2 Water 3 Comments
Reuse Water Quality Distances
Monitoring
Urban Reuse Secondary 4 pH = 6-9 pH - weekly 50 ft (15 m) to See Table 2-7 for other recommended limits.
Filtration 5 < 10 mg/l BOD 7 BOD - weekly potable water At controlled-access irrigation sites where design and
All types of < 2 NTU 8 Turbidity - supply wells operational measures significantly reduce the potential
Disinfection 6
landscape No detectable fecal continuous of public contact with reclaimed water, a lower level of
irrigation, (e.g., 9,10 Coliform - daily treatment, e.g., secondary treatment and disinfection to
coli/100 ml
golf courses, Cl2 residual - achieve < 14 fecal coli/100 ml, may be appropriate.
1 mg/l Cl2 residual
parks, 11 continuous Chemical (coagulant and/or polymer) addition prior to
cemeteries) – (minimum) filtration may be necessary to meet water quality
also vehicle recommendations.
washing, toilet The reclaimed water should not contain measurable levels of
flushing, use in 12
viable pathogens.
fire protection Reclaimed water should be clear and odorless.
systems and A higher chlorine residual and/or a longer contact time may
commercial air be necessary to assure that viruses and parasites are
conditioners, and inactivated or destroyed.
other uses with A chlorine residual of 0.5 mg/l or greater in the distribution
similar access or system is recommended to reduce odors, slime, and
exposure to the bacterial regrowth.
water See Section 3.4.3. for recommended treatment reliability.
Restricted Secondary 4 pH = 6-9 pH - weekly 300 ft (90 m) to See Table 2-7 for other recommended limits.
Access Area Disinfection 6 < 30 mg/l BOD 7 BOD - weekly potable water If spray irrigation, TSS less than 30 mg/l may be necessary
Irrigation < 30 mg/l TSS TSS - daily supply wells to avoid clogging of sprinkler heads.
< 200 fecal coli/100 Coliform - daily 100 ft (30 m) to See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
Sod farms, ml 9,13,14 Cl2 residual - areas accessible
silviculture sites, 1 mg/l Cl2 residual continuous to the public (if
and other areas spray irrigation)
(minimum) 11
where public
access is
prohibited,
restricted or
infrequent
Agricultural Secondary 4 pH = 6-9 pH - weekly 50 ft (15 m) to See Table 2-7 for other recommended limits.
Reuse – Food Filtration 5 < 10 mg/l BOD 7 BOD - weekly potable water Chemical (coagulant and/or polymer) addition prior to
Crops Not < 2 NTU 8 Turbidity - supply wells filtration may be necessary to meet water quality
Disinfection 6
Commercially No detectable fecal continuous recommendations.
Processed 15 Coliform - daily The reclaimed water should not contain measurable levels of
coli/100 ml 9,10
Cl2 residual - viable pathogens. 12
1 mg/l Cl2 residual
Surface or spray continuous A higher chlorine residual and/or a longer contact time may
(minimum) 11
irrigation of any be necessary to assure that viruses and parasites are
food crop, inactivated or destroyed.
including crops High nutrient levels may adversely affect some crops during
eaten raw. certain growth stages.
See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
Reuse – Food Disinfection
6 < 30 mg/l BOD 7 BOD - weekly potable water If spray irrigation, TSS less than 30 mg/l may be necessary
Crops < 30 mg/l TSS TSS - daily supply wells to avoid clogging of sprinkler heads.
Commercially < 200 fecal coli/100 Coliform - daily 100 ft (30 m) to High nutrient levels may adversely affect some crops during
Processed
15
ml 9,13,14 Cl2 residual - areas accessible certain growth stages.
1 mg/l Cl2 residual continuous to the public (if See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
Surface Irrigation 11 spray irrigation)
(minimum)
of Orchards and
Vineyards
Reuse – Non- Disinfection 6 < 30 mg/l BOD 7 BOD - weekly potable water If spray irrigation, TSS less than 30 mg/l may be necessary
food Crops < 30 mg/l TSS TSS - daily supply wells to avoid clogging of sprinkler heads.
< 200 fecal coli/100 Coliform - daily 100 ft (30 m) to High nutrient levels may adversely affect some crops during
Pasture for ml 9,13,14 Cl2 residual - areas accessible certain growth stages.
milking animals; 1 mg/l Cl2 residual continuous to the public (if Milking animals should be prohibited from grazing for 15
fodder, fiber, and 11 spray irrigation) days after irrigation ceases. A higher level of disinfection,
(minimum)
seed crops e.g., to achieve < 14 fecal coli/100 ml, should be provided if
this waiting period is not adhered to.
167
Reclaimed
Reclaimed Setback
Types of Reuse Treatment 2 Water 3 Comments
Water Quality Distances
Monitoring
Recreational Secondary 4 pH = 6-9 pH - weekly 500 ft (150 m) to Dechlorination may be necessary to protect aquatic species
Impoundments Filtration 5 < 10 mg/l BOD 7 BOD - weekly potable water of flora and fauna.
< 2 NTU 8 Turbidity - supply wells Reclaimed water should be non-irritating to skin and eyes.
Disinfection 6
Incidental contact No detectable fecal continuous (minimum) if Reclaimed water should be clear and odorless.
(e.g., fishing and Coliform - daily bottom not sealed Nutrient removal may be necessary to avoid algae growth in
coli/100 ml 9,10
boating) and full Cl2 residual - impoundments.
1 mg/l Cl2 residual
body contact with continuous Chemical (coagulant and/or polymer) addition prior to
reclaimed water (minimum) 11 filtration may be necessary to meet water quality
allowed recommendations.
The reclaimed water should not contain measurable levels of
viable pathogens. 12
A higher chlorine residual and/or a longer contact time may
be necessary to assure that viruses and parasites are
inactivated or destroyed.
Fish caught in impoundments can be consumed.
See Section 3.4.3. for recommended treatment reliability.
Landscape Secondary 4 < 30 mg/l BOD 7 pH - weekly 500 ft (150 m) to Nutrient removal may be necessary to avoid algae growth in
Impoundments Disinfection 6 < 30 mg/l TSS TSS - daily potable water impoundments.
< 200 fecal coli/100 Coliform - daily supply wells Dechlorination may be necessary to protect aquatic species
Aesthetic ml 9,13,14 Cl2 residual - (minimum) if of flora and fauna.
impoundment 1 mg/l Cl2 residual continuous bottom not sealed See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
where public
(minimum) 11
contact with
reclaimed water is
not allowed
Construction Use Secondary 4 < 30 mg/l BOD 7 BOD - weekly Worker contact with reclaimed water should be minimized.
Disinfection 6 < 30 mg/l TSS TSS - daily A higher level of disinfection, e.g., to achieve < 14 fecal
Soil compaction, < 200 fecal coli/100 Coliform - daily coli/100 ml, should be provided when frequent work contact
dust control, ml 9,13,14 Cl2 residual - with reclaimed water is likely.
washing 1 mg/l Cl2 residual continuous See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
aggregate, making (minimum) 11
concrete
Industrial Reuse Secondary 4 pH = 6-9 ▪ pH - weekly 300 ft (90 m) to Windblown spray should not reach areas accessible to
Disinfection 6 < 30 mg/l BOD 7 ▪ BOD - weekly areas accessible workers or the public.
Once-through < 30 mg/l TSS ▪ TSS - daily to the public
cooling < 200 fecal coli/100 ▪ Coliform - daily
ml 9,13,14 ▪ Cl2 residual -
1 mg/l Cl2 residual continuous
(minimum) 11
--------------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------- ---------------------- ------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recirculating Secondary 4 Variable depends pH - weekly 300 ft (90 m) to Windblown spray should not reach areas accessible to
cooling towers Disinfection 6 on recirculation BOD - weekly areas accessible workers or the public.
ratio (see Section TSS - daily to the public. Additional treatment by user is usually provided to prevent
(chemical
2.2.1) pH = 6-9 Coliform - daily May be reduced scaling, corrosion, biological growths, fouling and foaming.
coagulation
5 < 30 mg/l BOD 7 Cl2 residual - or eliminated if See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
and filtration
< 30 mg/l TSS continuous high level of
may be needed) < 200 fecal coli/100 disinfection is
ml 9,13,14 provided.
1 mg/l Cl2 residual
(minimum) 11
Other Industrial
Uses Depends on site specific uses (See Section 2.2.3)
Environmental Variable Variable, but not to BOD - weekly Dechlorination may be necessary to protect aquatic species
Reuse Secondary 4 exceed: TSS - daily of flora and fauna.
and < 30 mg/l BOD 7 Coliform - daily Possible effects on groundwater should be evaluated.
Wetlands, disinfection 6 < 30 mg/l TSS Cl2 residual - Receiving water quality requirements may necessitate
marshes, wildlife (minimum) < 200 fecal coli/100 continuous additional treatment.
habitat, stream ml 9,13,14 The temperature of the reclaimed water should not adversely
augmentation affect ecosystem.
168
Reclaimed
Types of Reclaimed Setback
Treatment Water Comments
Reuse Water Quality 2 Distances 3
Monitoring
Groundwater Site-specific Site-specific and Depends on Site-specific Facility should be designed to ensure that no reclaimed
Recharge and use use dependent treatment and water reaches potable water supply aquifers
dependent use See Section 2.5 for more information.
By spreading or Primary For spreading projects, secondary treatment may be
injection into (minimum) needed to prevent clogging.
aquifers not used for spreading For injection projects, filtration and disinfection may be
for public water Secondary 4 needed to prevent clogging.
supply (minimum) See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
for injection
Indirect Potable Secondary 4 Secondary 4 Includes, but not 500 ft (150 m) The depth to groundwater (i.e., thickness to the vadose
Reuse Disinfection 6 Disinfection 6 limited to, the to extraction zone) should be at least 6 feet (2 m) at the maximum
May also Meet drinking water following: wells. May groundwater mounding point.
Groundwater need standards after pH - daily vary depending The reclaimed water should be retained underground for at
recharge by Coliform - on treatment least 6 months prior to withdrawal.
filtration 5 percolation through
spreading into vadose zone daily provided and Recommended treatment is site-specific and depends on
and/or
potable aquifers Cl2 residual - site-specific factors such as type of soil, percolation rate, thickness of
advanced
continuous conditions. vadose zone, native groundwater quality, and dilution.
wastewater
Drinking water Monitoring wells are necessary to detect the influence of the
treatment 16 recharge operation on the groundwater.
standards -
quarterly See Sections 2.5 and 2.6 for more information.
Other 17 - The reclaimed water should not contain measurable levels of
depends on viable pathogens after percolation through the vadose
constituent zone. 12
BOD - weekly See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
Turbidity -
continuous
Indirect Potable Secondary 4 Includes, but not Includes, but not 2000 ft (600 m) The reclaimed water should be retained underground for at
Reuse Filtration 5 limited to, the limited to, the to extraction least 9 months prior to withdrawal.
following: following: wells. May vary Monitoring wells are necessary to detect the influence of the
Disinfection 6
Groundwater pH = 6.5 - 8.5 pH - daily depending on recharge operation on the groundwater.
Advanced
recharge by < 2 NTU 8 Turbidity - site-specific Recommended quality limits should be met a the point of
wastewater
injection into No detectable total continuous conditions. injection.
treatment 16 Total coliform - The reclaimed water should not contain measurable levels of
potable aquifers coli/100 ml 9,10
1 mg/l Cl2 residual daily viable pathogens after percolation through the vadose
(minimum) 11 Cl2 residual - zone. 12
< 3 mg/l TOC continuous See Sections 2.5 and 2.6 for more information.
< 0.2 mg/l TOX Drinking water A higher chlorine residual and/or a longer contact time may
Meet drinking water standards - be necessary to assure virus and protozoa inactivation.
standards quarterly See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
Other 17 -
depends on
constituent
Indirect Potable Secondary 4 Includes, but not Includes, but not Site-specific Recommended level of treatment is site-specific and
Reuse Filtration 5 limited to, the limited to, the depends on factors such as receiving water quality, time and
following: following: distance to point of withdrawal, dilution and subsequent
Disinfection 6
Augmentation of pH = 6.5 - 8.5 pH - daily treatment prior to distribution for potable uses.
Advanced
surface supplies < 2 NTU 8 Turbidity - The reclaimed water should not contain measurable levels of
wastewater
No detectable total continuous viable pathogens. 12
treatment 16 Total coliform -
coli/100 ml 9,10 See Sections 2.6 for more information.
1 mg/l Cl2 residual daily A higher chlorine residual and/or a longer contact time may
Cl2 residual - be necessary to assure virus and protozoa inactivation.
(minimum) 11
< 3 mg/l TOC continuous See Section 3.4.3 for recommended treatment reliability.
Meet drinking water Drinking water
standards standards -
quarterly
Other 17 -
depends on
constituent
169
Footnotes
1. These guidelines are based on water reclamation and reuse practices in the U.S., and they are especially
directed at states that have not developed their own regulations or guidelines. While the guidelines should
be useful in may areas outside the U.S., local conditions may limit the applicability of the guidelines in
some countries (see Chapter 8). It is explicitly stated that the direct application of these suggested
guidelines will not be used by USAID as strict criteria for funding.
2. Unless otherwise noted, recommended quality limits apply to the reclaimed water at the point of discharge
from the treatment facility.
3. Setback distances are recommended to protect potable water supply sources from contamination and to
protect humans from unreasonable health risks due to exposure to reclaimed water.
4. Secondary treatment processes include activated sludge processes, trickling filters, rotating biological
contractors, and may include stabilization pond systems. Secondary treatment should produce effluent in
which both the BOD and TSS do not exceed 30 mg/l.
5. Filtration means the passing of wastewater through natural undisturbed soils or filter media such as sand
and/or anthracite, filter cloth, or the passing of wastewater through microfilters or other membrane pro-
cesses.
6. Disinfection means the destruction, inactivation, or removal of pathogenic microorganisms by chemical,

physical, or biological means. Disinfection may be accomplished by chlorination, UV radiation, ozonation,
other chemical disinfectants, membrane processes, or other processes. The use of chlorine as defining
the level of disinfection does not preclude the use of other disinfection processes as an acceptable means
of providing disinfection for reclaimed water.
7. As determined from the 5-day BOD test.
8. The recommended turbidity limit should be met prior to disinfection. The average turbidity should be based
on a 24-hour time period. The turbidity should not exceed 5 NTU at any time. If TSS is used in lieu of
turbidity, the TSS should not exceed 5 mg/l.
9.Unless otherwise noted, recommended coliform limits are median values determined from the bacteriological
results of the last 7 days for which analyses have been completed. Either the membrane filter or fermenta-
tion-tube technique may be used.
10. The number of fecal coliform organisms should not exceed 14/100 ml in any sample.
11. Total chlorine residual should be met after a minimum contact time of 30 minutes.
12. It is advisable to fully characterize the microbiological quality of the reclaimed water prior to implementa
tion of a reuse program.
13. The number of fecal coliform organisms should not exceed 800/100 ml in any sample.
14. Some stabilization pond systems may be able to meet this coliform limit without disinfection.
15. Commercially processed food crops are those that, prior to sale to the public or others, have undergone
chemical or physical processing sufficient to destroy pathogens.
16. Advanced wastewater treatment processes include chemical clarification, carbon adsorption, reverse
osmosis and other membrane processes, air stripping, ultrafiltration, and ion exchange.
17. Monitoring should include inorganic and organic compounds, or classes of compounds, that are known or
uspected to be toxic, carcinogenic, teratogenic, or mutagenic and are not included in the drinking water
standards.
170
cific for coliform organisms of fecal origin. Therefore, that regulate drinking water standards for producing po-
fecal coliforms are better indicators of fecal contamina- table drinking water.
tion than total coliforms, and these guidelines use fecal
coliform as the indicator organism. Either the multiple- These guidelines do not include suggested specific para-
tube fermentation technique or the membrane filter tech- site or virus limits. Parasites have not been shown to be
nique may be used to quantify the coliform levels in the a problem at water reuse operations in the U.S. at the
reclaimed water. treatment and quality limits recommended in these
guidelines, although there has been considerable inter-
The Guidelines suggest that, regardless of the type of est in recent years regarding the occurrence and sig-
reclaimed water use, some level of disinfection should nificance of Giardia and Cryptosporidium in reclaimed
be provided to avoid adverse health consequences from water. Viruses are of concern in reclaimed water, but
inadvertent contact or accidental or intentional misuse virus limits are not recommended in these guidelines
of a water reuse system. For nonpotable uses of re- for the following reasons:
claimed water, 2 levels of disinfection are recommended.
Reclaimed water used for applications where no direct A significant body of information exists indicating that
public or worker contact with the water is expected should viruses are reduced or inactivated to low or immeasur-
be disinfected to achieve an average fecal coliform con- able levels via appropriate wastewater treatment, includ-
centration not exceeding 200/100 ml because: ing filtration and disinfection (Yanko, 1993).
Most bacterial pathogens will be destroyed or re- The identification and enumeration of viruses in waste-
duced to low or insignificant levels in the water water are hampered by relatively low virus recovery
rates, the complexity and high cost of laboratory pro-
The concentration of viable viruses will be reduced cedures, and the limited number of facilities having
somewhat the personnel and equipment necessary to perform
the analyses.
Disinfection of secondary effluent to this coliform
level is readily achievable at minimal cost The laboratory culturing procedure to determine the
presence or absence of viruses in a water sample
Significant health-related benefits associated with takes about 14 days, and an additional 14 days are
disinfection to lower, but not pathogen-free, levels required to identify the viruses.
are not obvious
While recombinant DNA technology provides new
For uses where direct or indirect contact with reclaimed tools to rapidly detect viruses in water (e.g., nucleic
water is likely or expected, and for dual water systems acid probes and polymerase chain reaction technol-
where there is a potential for cross-connections with ogy), methods currently in use are not able to quan-
potable water lines, disinfection to produce reclaimed tify viruses or differentiate between infective and non-
water having no detectable fecal coliform organisms per infective virus particles.
100 ml is recommended. This more restrictive disinfec-
tion level is intended for use in conjunction with tertiary There is no consensus among virus experts regard-
treatment and other water quality limits, such as a tur- ing the health significance of low levels of viruses in
bidity less than or equal to 2 NTU in the wastewater reclaimed water.
prior to disinfection. This combination of treatment and
use of water quality limits has been shown to produce There have been no documented cases of viral dis-
reclaimed water that is essentially free of measurable ease resulting from the reuse of wastewater at any
levels of bacterial and viral pathogens. of the water reuse operations in the U.S.
For indirect potable uses of reclaimed water, where re- The removal of suspended matter is related to the virus
claimed water is intentionally introduced into the raw issue. Many pathogens are particulate-associated and
water supply for the purposes of increasing the total that particulate matter can shield both bacteria and vi-
volume of water available for potable use, disinfection ruses from disinfectants such as chlorine and UV radia-
to produce reclaimed water having no detectable total tion. Also, organic matter consumes chlorine, thus mak-
coliform organisms per 100 ml is recommended. Total ing less of the disinfectant available for disinfection.
coliform is recommended, in lieu of fecal coliform, to be There is general agreement that particulate matter should
consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) be reduced to low levels, e.g., 2 NTU or 5 mg/l TSS,
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) prior to disinfection to ensure reliable destruction of patho-
171
genic microorganisms during the disinfection process. 4.3 Pathogens and Emerging
Suspended solids measurements are typically performed Pollutants of Concern (EPOC)
daily on a composite sample and only reflect an average
value. Continuously monitored turbidity is superior to daily As needs for alternative water supplies grow, reclaimed
suspended solids measurements as an aid to treatment water will be used more in both direct nonpotable appli-
operation. cations and indirect potable reuse projects. Future moni-
toring for pathogens and other EPOCs will likely be nec-
The need to remove organic matter is related to the type essary to ensure that reclaimed water is a safe water
of reuse. Some of the adverse effects associated with source. For example, California regulations require
organic substances are that they are aesthetically dis- monthly sampling and analysis for Giardia, enteric vi-
pleasing (may be malodorous and impart color), pro- ruses, and Cryptosporidium for the use of reclaimed
vide food for microorganisms, adversely affect disinfec- water for impoundments during the first year of opera-
tion processes, and consume oxygen. The recom- tion (State of California, 2000). After the first year, the
mended BOD limit is intended to indicate that the or- reclaimed water may be sampled and analyzed quar-
ganic matter has been stabilized, is nonputrescible, and terly and monitoring may be discontinued after 2 years
has been lowered to levels commensurate with antici- of operation with the approval of the California Depart-
pated types of reuse. TSS limits are suggested as a ment of Health Services (DHS). As previously discussed,
measure of organic and inorganic particulate matter in Florida requires monitoring of Giardia and Cryptosporidium
reclaimed water that has received secondary treatment. with sampling frequency based on treatment plant ca-
The recommended BOD and TSS limits are readily pacity for specific types of reuse.
achievable at well operated water reclamation plants.
The DHS updated the draft regulations for Groundwater
The suggested setback distances are somewhat sub- Recharge Reuse in July 2003 to require monitoring of
jective. They are intended to protect drinking water sup- EPOCs. Each quarter, during the first year of operation,
plies from contamination and, where appropriate, to pro- the reclaimed water shall be analyzed for: unregulated
tect humans from exposure to the reclaimed water. While chemicals; priority toxic pollutants; chemicals with state
studies indicate the health risk associated with aero- action levels; and other chemicals that the DHS has speci-
sols from spray irrigation sites using reclaimed water is fied (California DHS, 2003). Chemicals with state action
low, the general practice is to limit, through design or levels are defined as chemicals that have been detected
operational controls, exposure to aerosols and wind- at least once in drinking water supplies or chemicals of
blown spray produced from reclaimed water that is not interest for some specific reason. The other chemicals
highly disinfected. as specified by the DHS include N-Nitrosodiethylamine
(NDEA) and N-Nitrosopyrrolidine.
Unplanned or incidental indirect potable reuse occurs
in many states in the U.S., while planned or intentional The draft regulations also require annual monitoring of
indirect potable reuse via groundwater recharge or aug- pharmaceuticals, endocrine disrupting chemicals, and
mentation of surface supplies is a less-widely accepted other chemical indicators of municipal wastewater pres-
practice. Whereas the water quality requirements for ence. The draft regulations state that these samples are
nonpotable water uses are tractable and not likely to being collected for information purposes, and there are
change significantly in the future, the number of water no standards for the contaminants listed and no stan-
quality constituents to be monitored in drinking water (and, dards anticipated at this time (California DHS, 2003).
hence, reclaimed water intended for potable reuse) will
increase and quality requirements will become more re- Although no illnesses to date have been directly con-
strictive. Consequently, it would not be prudent to sug- nected to the use of reclaimed water, in order to better
gest a complete list of reclaimed water quality limits for define pathogens and EPOCs contained in reclaimed
all constituents of concern. Some general and specific water, it is recommended to continue with ongoing re-
information is provided in the guidelines to indicate the search and additional monitoring for Giardia,
extensive treatment, water quality, and other requirements Cryptosporidium, and other EPOCs.
that are likely to be imposed where indirect potable reuse
is contemplated. 4.4 Pilot Testing
Because it is desirable to fully characterize the reclaimed

water to be produced and to compare its quality to other
water sources in the area, pilot testing should be con-
ducted in support of some of the more sensitive types of
172
reuse, like groundwater recharge by injection and indi-

rect potable reuse. Pilot testing can be used to demon-
strate the ability of the selected unit processes to meet
project objectives and to refine the design of sophisti-
cated treatment trains. Pilot testing also can be used to
demonstrate the ability of the treatment and disinfec-
tion units to effectively control pathogens and organic
compounds. As part of this activity, the EPOCs, includ-
ing pharmaceutically active substances, endocrine dis-
rupters, and personal care products, can be evaluated.
Ideally, pilot testing should build on previous work as
opposed to repeating it.
4.5 References
California Department of Health Services. 2003. Ground-

water Recharge Reuse Regulations July 2003 Draft, Title
22, California Code of Regulations, Division 4. Environ-
mental Health, Chapter 3. Recycling Criteria.
California State Water Resources Control Board. 2000.
California Municipal Wastewater Reclamation Survey.

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/recycling/recyfund/munirec/
index.html.
2001 Reuse Inventory. http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/

reuse/.
Hilger, H.A., 2003. “An Assessment of North Carolina

Water Reuse Regulations: Their Application to a New
Reclamation Facility and Their Key Features Compared
to Other State Reuse Regulations,” North Carolina Water
Resources Research Institute, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Perlman, H.A., Pierce, R.R., and Solley, W.B. 1998. Es-

timated Use of Water in the U.S. in 1995. U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey Circular 1200.
State of California. 2000. California Code of Regulations,

Title 22, Division 4, Environmental Health, Chapter 3
Recycling Criteria.
Van Riper, C., G. Schlender and M. Walther, 1998. “Evo-

lution of Water Reuse Regulations in Washington State.”
WateReuse Conference Proceedings, AWWA, Denver,
Colorado.
Yanko, W.A. 1993. “Analysis of 10 Years of Virus Moni-

toring Data from Los Angeles County Treatment Plants
Meeting California Wastewater Reclamation Criteria.”
Water Environ. Research, 65(3):221-226.
173
174
CHAPTER 5
Legal and Institutional Issues
Although specific laws vary widely, most states have Forging and maintaining contact with the appropri-
adopted a number of rules and policies that both sup- ate agencies
port and challenge the development of reclaimed water
projects. Since public health regulations are reviewed Developing a realistic schedule
in detail in Chapter 4, this chapter focuses on other is-
sues that emerge during the various stages of planning Assessing cash flow needs
and implementing water reuse projects, including rel-
evant rules promulgated by federal, state, and local ju- Considering institutional structure
risdictions.
Identifying steps to minimize liability
Laws, policies, rules, and regulations that affect project
planning include water rights laws, water use, and Preparing contracts
wastewater discharge regulations, as well as laws that
restrict land use and protect the environment. Included 5.1 Water Rights Law
in project implementation issues are policies that guide
the development of reclaimed water rates and agree- A water right is a right to use water – it is not a right of
ments between reclaimed water producers, wholesal- ownership. In the U.S., the state generally retains own-
ers, retailers, and customers, as well as rules affecting ership of “natural” or public water within its boundaries,
system construction and liability for water reuse. and state statutes, regulations, and case law govern
the allocation and administration of the rights of private
Some legal matters are quite technical, and the body of parties and governmental entities to use such water. A
statutory and case law in the area of water reuse is rela- “water right” allows water to be diverted at one or more
tively small. The majority of the rules and policies are particular points and a portion of the water to be used
focused on areas where water reuse has been prac- for one or more particular purposes. A basic doctrine in
ticed, and expansion to other areas might raise issues water rights law is that harm cannot be rendered upon
not discussed here. Therefore, managers should care- others who have a claim to the water. Water rights are
fully consider the legal and institutional aspects of a new an especially important issue since the rights allocated
reuse project, and obtain counsel to help weigh alter- by the states can either promote reuse measures, or
natives and risks. However, even a review of the basic they can pose an obstacle. For example, in water-lim-
issues should allow reuse planners to identify the most ited areas, where water reuse might be most attractive,
important questions early in the planning process where water rights laws might prohibit the use of potable wa-
they can be most effectively addressed. ter for nonpotable purposes, while at the same time re-
stricting the use of reclaimed water in a consumptive
This section also expands upon the following guidelines fashion that prevents its return to the stream.
that can assist managers in addressing legal and insti-
tutional issues during the planning and implementation State laws allocate water based on 2 types of rights –
phases of a reuse system: the appropriative doctrine and the riparian doctrine.
These will be described in general terms, after which
Identifying the legal and institutional drivers for re- there will be a brief analysis of their application to water
use reuse projects.
Developing a public education program
175
5.1.1 Appropriative Rights System native.
The appropriative rights system is found in most west- 5.1.2 Riparian Rights System
ern states and in areas that are water-limited. (Califor-
nia has both appropriative and riparian rights.) It is a The riparian water rights system is found primarily in
system by which the right to use water is appropriated – the east and in water-abundant areas. The right is based
that is, it is assigned or delegated to the consumer. The on the proximity to water and is acquired by the pur-
basic notion is first in time, first in right. In other words, chase of the land. A riparian user is not entitled to make
the right derives from beneficial use on a first-come, any use of the water that substantially depletes the
first-served basis and not from the property’s proximity stream flow or that significantly degrades the quality of
to the water source. The first party to use the water has the stream. Such riparian use can only be for a legal
the most senior claim to that water. The senior users and beneficial purpose. The right of one riparian owner
have a continued right to the water, and a “late” user is generally correlative with the rights of the other ripar-
generally cannot diminish the quantity or quality of the ian owners, with each landowner being assured some
water to the senior user. This assures that senior users water when available.
have adequate water under almost any rainfall condi-
tions, and that later users have some moderate assur- Water used under a riparian right can be used only on
ance to the water. The last to obtain water rights may the riparian land and cannot be extended to another
be limited to water only during times when it is available property. However, unlike the appropriative doctrine, the
(wet season). The right is for a specific quantity of wa- right to the unused water can be held indefinitely and
ter, but the appropriator may not divert more water than without forfeiture. This limits the ability of the water au-
can be used. If the appropriated water is not used, it will thority to quantify the amount of water that has a hold
be lost. against it and can lead to water being allocated in ex-
cess of that available. This doctrine does not allow for
Generally, appropriative water rights are acquired pur- storage of water.
suant to statutory law; thus, there are comprehensive
water codes that govern the acquisition and control of 5.1.3 Water Rights and Water Reuse
the water rights. The acquisition of the water right is
usually accompanied by an application to state officials In arid parts of the western U.S., reclaimed water often
responsible for water rights and granted with a permit constitutes a more reliable supply than rights to surface
or license. The appropriative rights doctrine allows for water or groundwater granted by a water authority. This
obtaining water by putting it to beneficial use in accor- is particularly true when a user has low-priority rights
dance with procedures set forth in state statutes and that are curtailed or withdrawn in times of shortage.
judicial decisions. (Such subordinate rights are sometimes referred to as
“paper water” as opposed to “wet water” which refers to
The appropriative water rights system is generally used the possession of an actual supply.) Because of the dif-
for groundwater throughout the U.S. Water percolating ficulty in obtaining an uninterrupted supply, reclaimed
through the ground is controlled by 3 different appro- water has simultaneously become an attractive alter-
priative methods: absolute ownership, reasonable use native water source and the largest block of unappro-
rule, or specific use rule. Absolute ownership occurs priated water in the West. Consequently, it is important
when the water located directly beneath a property be- to understand who retains control of the reclaimed wa-
longs to the property owner to use in any amount, re- ter among the discharger, water supplier, other appro-
gardless of the effect on the water table of the adjacent priators, and environmental interests. For example, in
land, as long as it is not for a malicious use. The rea- Washington State, the municipal corporation of the City
sonable use rule limits groundwater withdrawal to the of Walla Walla was taken to court by a local irrigation
quantity necessary for reasonable and beneficial use in district that wanted the city to continue to discharge
connection with the land located above the water. Wa- wastewater effluent into Mill Creek, a natural channel,
ter cannot be wasted or exported. The specific use rule for irrigation use. The court decreed on 2 occasions
occurs when water use is restricted to one use. that the city must discharge all of its wastewater efflu-
ent, at all seasons of the year, into the creek (Superior
During times of excess water supply, storage alterna- Court of the State of Washington, 1927 and 1971).
tives may be considered as part of the reuse project so
that water may be used at a later date. A determination According to Colgne and MacLaggan (1995) the down-
of the ownership or rights to use this stored reclaimed stream water user’s right to reclaimed water depends
water will need to be made when considering this alter- on the state’s water allocation system:
176
Some states issue permits to the owners of re- propriative law, and in times of water shortage, it is
claimed water or to appropriators of it when dis- possible that a more important use could make claim
charged into a natural water course. These to reclaimed water that, for example, is being used
states granting permits to the appropriators of for industrial process water.
reclaimed water do so treating such discharges
into a reclaimed watercourse as if it has been Reduced Withdrawal – A water reuse program that
abandoned and thus available for appropriation. reduces withdrawals from the water supply will prob-
Other states issue appropriation permits con- ably pose no third-party conflict with water rights
taining a provision that clarifies that the permit issues, but the impact of such reductions on project-
does not, in itself, give the permittee a right proponent water rights should be evaluated. In some
against a party discharging water upstream who instances, such as when water rights or allocations
may cease to discharge the water to the water- are based on historic usage, reductions could jeop-
course in the future. ardize the amount of water a customer is entitled
to, especially during times of drought. This has a
In other words, state law can either promote or con- negative effect on the marketing of reclaimed wa-
strain reuse projects depending on how its system of ter. Therefore, where possible, assurances should
water rights regards the use and return of reclaimed be made that historic allocations will not be reduced
water. In general, the owner of a wastewater treatment to the point that the customer will suffer damage
plant that produces effluent is generally considered to during periods of shortage.
have first rights to its use and is not usually bound to
continue its discharge. However, when a discharger’s 5.1.4 Federal Water Rights Issues
right to reuse is constrained, such restrictions are usu-
ally based on issues resulting from one of the following Although most water rights issues are decided accord-
scenarios: ing to state law, in certain cases federal water laws may
impact the planning of water reuse projects. This most
Reduced Discharge – Reduction or elimination of often occurs when the project augments, reduces, or
effluent discharge flows due to certain types of re- otherwise impacts the supply of water to more than one
use (e.g. evaporative cooling, groundwater infiltra- state, to protected Native American tribes, or to other
tion) could result in legal challenges from down- countries. In addition to these areas of federal involve-
stream users, especially when the reduced flow re- ment, the federal government also has the right to ad-
sults in serious economic losses or negative impacts equate water from sources on or adjacent to its own
on the environment. When the use of reclaimed property to meet the required needs of the land. Some
water reduces or eliminates the discharge of waste- of the water rights laws that may apply to this situation
water to the watercourse, downstream users may are listed below.
make claim damages against the owner of the re-
use project. The nature of the legal challenge would Multi-State and Federal Water Allocations – The fed-
depend on the water rights system used. These is- eral government may claim jurisdiction in disputes
sues are less well defined for groundwater than for between states regarding the allocation of limited
streams and rivers. water supplies. This has been particularly true in
the West where 5 states (Arizona, California, Colo-
Changes in Point-of-Discharge or Place-of-Use – rado, Nevada, and Utah) are served by the Colo-
Occurs in states with appropriative rights where laws rado River where the flow is not always sufficient to
are designed to protect the origin of the water by supply all the nominal allocations. A federal inter-
limiting the place-of-use or by requiring the same est may also be invoked when water owned by the
point of discharge. In riparian states, the place-of- federal government is allocated to various parties
use can also be an issue when reclaimed water is within the same state. In such cases, the federal
distributed to users located outside the watershed government may serve as the “honest broker” be-
from which the water was originally drawn. tween parties. Or, in instances were the federal in-
terest is strong enough, the government may sup-
Hierarchy of Use – Generally with water reuse, the port the implementation of an appropriate solution
concepts of “reasonable use” and “beneficial use” to allocation conflicts by funding recommended im-
should not present an obstacle, particularly if such provements. In either situation, the availability of al-
reuse is economically justified. Nevertheless, a hi- ternative water supplies (e.g. reclaimed water) may
erarchy of use still exists in both riparian and ap- constitute an important factor in determining water
rights and entitlements. (This is also discussed in
177
Section 5.2 “Water Supply and Use.”) served or reused. Often these standards serve to pro-
mote reuse by requiring water users to reduce their to-
Native American Water Rights – Although there have tal or per capita water use as compared to an estab-
been many court decisions relating to the water lished baseline. In some cases, certain uses of potable
rights of Indian reservations and other federal lands, water (i.e., irrigation, power plant cooling) are consid-
there is still a great deal of uncertainty as to how ered “unreasonable” and are prohibited unless other,
these decisions should be interpreted. If there is a nonpotable sources have been determined to be “envi-
possibility that a water reuse project will conflict with ronmentally undesirable or economically unsound” (Cali-
the federal reserved water rights, either from an In- fornia Water Code Section 13550).
dian reservation or other federal reserve, a very
careful legal interpretation of such water rights There are 3 main types of water supply and use rules
should be obtained. discussed here:
International Water Rights – Another area of fed- Water supply reductions

eral interest with respect to water rights is in the
distribution of water supplies across state lines, or Water efficiency goals
in international or boundary waters (e.g. the Great
Lakes, the Tijuana River). In such situations, where Water use restrictions
the use of reclaimed water might reduce the access
to water supply between states, or to another na- 5.2.1 Water Supply Reductions
tion, federal jurisdiction may be imposed.
Water supply reductions are often imposed during peri-
Water Rights on Federal Property – Referred to as ods of drought. For example, Florida has identified wa-
federal reserved water rights, the quantity of water ter conservation goals for the water management dis-
reserved by the federal government does not have tricts to implement (FDEP, 1999). To meet these goals
to be established at the time of the land’s acquisi- and to help ensure that enough water is available to
tion. In addition, these water rights are not lost due meet anticipated potable water demands, Florida issued
to non-use or abandonment and can be designated a water shortage order in 2001 to limit the number of
for purposes other than that which they were origi- irrigation days per week. Where water shortages are
nally intended, as long as consumption does not common, cutbacks may be imposed by statute, or they
increase. These rights may be set aside by execu- may be written into water allocation agreements between
tive order, statute, treaty, or agreement (Weinberg the various parties, (e.g., Colorado River Agreement,
and Allan, 1990). Water may also be appropriated Monterey Agreement). During such times, appropriate
by the federal government for purposes established water rights may be invoked so that the senior rights-
by Congress and carried out on non-reserved lands. holders receive their full allocations, or have their allo-
Like the water rights associated with federal re- cations reduced less than those with more junior rights.
serves, this right to water for non-reserved lands Whatever the cause, water shortages often provide a
may not cause harm to other water users and the powerful incentive to implement water reuse projects to
appropriation may not take priority over already ex- augment supplies, especially where reductions are fre-
isting appropriations. There is some question as to quent and other less costly methods (e.g., water con-
whether there is sufficient legal basis for claiming servation) have already been implemented.
water under the non-reserved rights scenario.
When the supply is curtailed by the federal or state gov-
5.2 Water Supply and Use ernment, local water agencies may adopt tiered rates,
Regulations priority categories, and other pricing and allocation strat-
egies to minimize the impact of drought on customers
Water supply and use legislation in the context of the by making sure that water is available for firefighting,
Guidelines is distinct from water rights law in that it cov- public health, and other critical purposes. One side ef-
ers policies and regulations, which determine how an fect of such restrictions is an increased public aware-
agency or entity with water rights may decide to distrib- ness of the cost associated with water supply—costs
ute that supply to various parties. Over the past decade, that water reuse projects can help to avoid. The fre-
it has become increasingly common for federal, state, quency of restrictions can also help planners evaluate
and even local entities to set standards for how water the risk of such shortages, which in turn can increase
may be used as a condition of supplying water to its the calculated value of the reuse projects.
customers, including the extent to which it must be con-
178
5.2.2 Water Efficiency Goals ties or consequences result from non-compliance. In

the case of local water restrictions, it may not be neces-
Water efficiency goals can be either mandatory or vol- sary to test the enforceability of the statutes, since the
untary. When voluntary goals (or targets) are promul- potential consequences of non-compliance may be suf-
gated, public support for conservation and reuse are ficient to persuade most customers to use reclaimed
usually stimulated by advertising or outreach campaigns water for appropriate purposes. Otherwise, penalties
designed to underscore the importance of protecting lim- should be specified at a level adequate to deter viola-
ited supplies. When mandatory goals are set, however, tion. Such penalties may include disconnection of ser-
compliance is related to fees and availability of service. vice and a fee for reconnection with fines and jail time
On a local level, the consequences for failing to meet for major infractions (e.g., Mesa, Arizona and Brevard
mandatory goals can range from higher use fees (e.g. County, Florida). However, other regulations designed
tiered water rates, surcharges) to termination of service. to protect water customers from termination may miti-
Where water efficiency is required on a state level, in- gate or even neutralize that particular penalty option.
centives are frequently used to encourage compliance,
and meeting certain targets is a prerequisite for qualify- Where local ordinances require the use of reclaimed
ing for grants or loans or even for receiving a greater water, they may also include a variety of other require-
percent of an agency’s normal allocation. ments regulating its supply and use, including rules for
customer connection, inspection, and facility manage-
When water reuse projects are planned in areas where ment. Many cities require customers within a given dis-
voluntary or mandatory goals are in place, project man- tance of existing or proposed reclaimed water pipes to
agers should be sure that the proposed reuse types connect to the reclaimed water system. This may be
qualify as water efficiency measures so that reclaimed coupled with restrictions on the use of potable water for
water customers can take advantage of the resulting nonpotable purposes, such as irrigation. Some cities
benefits. have gone as far as to prohibit the use of other
nonpotable water (i.e. groundwater or surface water)
5.2.3 Water Use Restrictions where reclaimed water is available. These rules are ex-
amined more closely in a later section, 5.5.3 Customer
Water use restrictions may either prohibit the use of Agreements.
potable water for certain purposes, or require the use of
reclaimed water in place of potable water. Ordinances 5.3 Wastewater Regulations
requiring water reuse, however, generally allow other-
wise prohibited and “unreasonable” uses of potable Both federal and state agencies exercise jurisdiction
water to occur when reclaimed water is unavailable, is over the quality and quantity of wastewater discharge
unsuitable for the specific use, is uneconomical, or when into public waterways. The primary authority for the regu-
its use would have a negative impact on the environ- lation of wastewater is the Federal Water Pollution Con-
ment. trol Act, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act
(CWA) (Public Law 92-500). While the legislative origin
On a federal level, there have been discussions in re- of the CWA stretches back to the Rivers and Harbors
cent years on encouraging the passage of federal wa- Act of 1899, the 1972 CWA assigned the federal gov-
ter use restrictions as part of a “green building” regula- ernment specific responsibilities for water quality man-
tion, such that all federally-sponsored projects must agement designed to make all surface waters “fishable
evaluate the use of reclaimed water during the plan- and swimmable” (Cologne and MacLaggan, 1995). The
ning process. However, no such rules have yet been CWA requires states to set water quality standards, thus
proposed. On a state level, water use restrictions are establishing the right to control pollution from wastewa-
important because they give local jurisdictions a legal ter treatment plants, as long as such regulations are at
foundation for regulating local use. They may also be least as stringent as federal rules. Primary jurisdiction
effective in promoting water reuse, particularly when under the CWA is with the EPA, but in most states the
such rules also require state agencies to evaluate alter- CWA is administered and enforced by the state water
native supplies for all state-funded projects. pollution control agencies.
Local water use restrictions can help to encourage re- Wastewater discharge regulations mostly address
use when the practice is generally accepted and readily treated effluent quality—specifically the removal of
available at a cost below other supplies. However, an chemical pollutants and biological pathogens that could
important consideration in evaluating the implementa- have a deleterious effect on receiving waters. Even in
tion of such restrictions is deciding what type of penal- regions of the U.S. where rainfall is plentiful (i.e., Florida),
179
regulations that establish criteria for discharged waste- Wastewater discharge regulations are important to wa-
water water quality can provide a powerful incentive to ter reuse managers for a number of reasons. First, re-
reuse treated effluent. Although less common, discharge use projects can be implemented as an alternative to
permits may also restrict the quantity of effluent dis- high levels of treatment when discharge regulations re-
charged to a receiving body to limit its effect on the lo- quire advanced treatment methods, such as nutrient re-
cal ecosystem. Such regulations may be continuous or moval. Second, the level of treatment required by the
seasonal, and may or may not correspond to a period NPDES permit may be adequate to meet most health
when reclaimed water is in demand. As with water quality regulations, reducing the investment needed to meet
limits, it is important for those planning reuse projects reuse standards. By the same token, the level of reli-
to meet with treatment plant managers to understand ability required by NPDES standards may be less rigor-
the extent of discharge limitations and how they may be ous than what paying customers expect, so that supple-
alleviated by supplying treated effluent for reuse. mentary treatment systems are needed to ensure con-
tinuous production. These issues should be thoroughly
5.3.1 Effluent Quality Limits explored by those planning water reuse projects prior
to project design and implementation.
The CWA regulates discharge of pollutants into navi-
gable waters through permits issued pursuant to the 5.3.2 Effluent Flow Limits
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). Under the CWA, the term “navigable waters” Although less common than water quality regulations,
means waters of the U.S. The federal courts follow the the quantity of treatment plant effluent discharged to a
Tenth Circuit Court’s conclusion that this definition is an receiving body may also be limited by regulation, such
expression of congressional intent “to regulate dis- as the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Such regula-
charges made into every creek, stream, river or body of tions may be continuous or seasonal, and may or may
water that in any way may affect interstate commerce” not correspond to periods associated with reclaimed
(United States vs. Earth Sciences Inc., 1979). water demand as required by the NPDES permit. For
instance, state regulators in California required the San
The goal of the CWA is to “restore and maintain the Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant (serv-
chemical, physical and biologic integrity of the nation’s ing the Silicon Valley area of northern California) to re-
waters.” The CWA sets forth specific goals to conserve use treated effluent as an alternative to limiting discharge
water and reduce pollutant discharges and directs the into the south end of San Francisco Bay during the sum-
EPA Administrator to assist with the development and mer dry-weather period (May through October). In this
implementation of water reclamation plans, which will instance the limitation was due not to contaminants, but
achieve those goals. Major objectives of the CWA are to the fact that the point of discharge was a saltwater
to eliminate all pollutant discharges into navigable wa- marsh which was made brackish by the discharge of
ters, stop discharges of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts, relatively fresh treated effluent. The salt marsh in ques-
develop waste treatment management plans to control tion is home to 2 endangered species (Rosenblum,
sources of pollutants, and to encourage water reclama- 1998). Further discussion of the Endangered Species
tion and reuse. Pursuant to this goal, the EPA has evalu- Act is in Section 5.4.2.
ated major waterways in the U.S. to determine which
ones fail to meet federal water quality standards. Effluent quantity may also be limited due to the demand
Waterbodies listed as “impaired” according to Section for the reclaimed water by communities in the area. In a
303(d) of the CWA are protected by strict limits on the 1984 decision by the California State Water Resources
discharge of the specific pollutants of concern that could Control Board, the Fallbrook Sanitary District (a waste-
further degrade their water quality. water discharger near San Diego) was enjoined to show
cause why their treated effluent was discharged to the
In addition to limits on the concentration of specific con- Pacific Ocean rather than made available for reuse by
taminants, discharge regulations may also include lim- the local community. As discussed in the citation above,
its on the total mass of a pollutant discharged to the the foundation of this ruling (which has not been tested
receiving stream – known as total maximum daily load by the courts) lies with that state’s prohibition against
(TMDL) limits – and on the quality of the water in the wasting water and the “unreasonable” use of potable
receiving stream itself (e.g. minimum dissolved oxygen water when reclaimed water is available. This case also
limits). These regulations are usually the result of ex- illustrates a trend towards viewing water of any quality
tended negotiations between federal, state, and local suitable for some type of reuse, such that its discharge
agencies. may be limited for the sake of preserving a scarce pub-
lic resource.
180
5.4 Safe Drinking Water Act – mulgated and enforced by federal and state govern-
Source Water Protection ments, most land use regulations are developed and
enforced by local jurisdictions. But while they are gen-
In 1996, the 104th Congress reauthorized and amended erally considered to be local matters, land use decisions
Title XIV of the Public Health Services Act (commonly are always made in the context of federal environmen-
known as the Safe Drinking Water Act). One of the tal laws and state planning regulations that also influ-
amendments included was Section 132, Source Water ence their determination. The following section reviews
Assessment, which requires that the EPA administrator the key elements of local land use planning, as well as
publish guidance for states exercising primary enforce- the underlying environmental regulations and their ef-
ment responsibility for public water systems to carry out fect on planning reclaimed water projects.
directly or through delegation, (for the protection and
benefit of public water systems and for the support of 5.5.1 General and Specific Plans
monitoring flexibility), a source water assessment pro-
gram within the state’s boundaries. The program require- Most communities in the U.S. engage in some type of
ments include: (a) delineating the boundaries of the as- structured planning process whereby the local jurisdic-
sessment areas in such state from which one or more tion regulates development according to a general plan.
public water systems in the state receive supplies of A general plan is designed to serve as “a basis for ratio-
drinking water, using all reasonably available nal decisions regarding a city’s or county’s long-term
hydrogeologic information on the sources of the supply physical development [and] embodies public policy rela-
and the water flow, recharge, discharge, and any other tive to the distribution of future land uses, both public
reliable information deemed necessary to adequately and private” (State of California, 1998 and State of
determine such areas; and (b) identifying contaminants Florida, 2002). General plans can be adopted by ordi-
regulated under this title for which monitoring is required nance and are sometimes reinforced with zoning regu-
under this title or any unregulated contaminants which lations and similar restrictions. In some states, commu-
the state has determined may present a threat to public nities are legally required to adopt these general plans,
health. To the extent practical, the origins of such con- and projects that significantly deviate from them must
taminants within each delineated area should be deter- be rejected, modified, or permitted by variance.
mined so that the susceptibility of the public water sys-
tems to such contaminants can be decided. The cost of extending utilities into undeveloped areas
is an important criterion when deciding where to permit
A state may establish a petition program under which a development in a community, as is the availability of
community water system, municipal or local government, resources. Even after a general plan is adopted and an
or political subdivision of a state may submit a source area is planned for a particular type of development,
water quality protection partnership petition requesting developers may be required to prepare specific plans
state assistance in the development of a voluntary, in- that demonstrate sufficient water supply or wastewater
centive-based partnership to reduce the presence of treatment capacity to meet the needs of their develop-
drinking water contaminants, and to obtain financial or ments. Several western states have also adopted laws
technical assistance necessary to set up the source that require communities to adopt water management
water of a community water system. A petition may only plans and identify additional supplies to support new
address contaminants that are pathogenic organisms developments. Such rules actually encourage the imple-
for which regulations are established, or for which regu- mentation of reuse projects that reduce the use of lim-
lations have been proposed or promulgated and are ited resources. In chronically water-short or environmen-
detected by adequate monitoring methods in the source tally sensitive areas, use of reclaimed water may even
water at the intake structure or in any community water be a prerequisite for new developments.
system collection, treatment storage, or distribution fa-
cilities at levels above the maximum contaminant level However, the local planning process can also pose a
(MCL), or that are not reliable and consistently below challenge to reuse projects by subjecting them to the
the MCL. scrutiny of a public that may have many misconcep-
tions about reclaimed water. Federal and state environ-
5.5 Land Use and Environmental mental assessment regulations (which are often in-
Regulations cluded in the local planning process) require public no-
tice of published plans and advertised hearings to so-
Land use policies regulate the development and use of licit opinion from all parties potentially affected by the
property which might be served by reclaimed water sys- proposed project. It is not unusual at such hearings to
tems. Unlike water and wastewater laws that are pro- hear opposition to the use of reclaimed water for rea-
181
sons ranging from health effects to growth inducement ticularly important when evaluating the economics of
to environmental justice. These concerns often mask reuse projects to consider how reclaimed water serves
underlying worries about growth or political issues that to augment water supply and divert wastewater from
may be hard to deal with directly. However, unless the impacted waters, and to include both direct and indirect
specific concerns are thoroughly addressed in the plan- benefits. The evaluation should include the consider-
ning process, it is unlikely that the project will proceed ation of preserving a habitat that might be depleted by
to the point that the underlying issues can emerge to be importing surface water supplies or the avoided cost of
dealt with. Furthermore, failure of a reuse project to con- mitigating such an impact. A steady stream of research
form to general plan guidelines and local requirements has appeared in the literature during the past decade
will render the project vulnerable to challenge in the suggesting appropriate methods of contingent valua-
courts or to appeal before the regulatory bodies even tion for environmental benefits (Sheikh et al., 1998).
after the project is approved.
On the other hand, environmental assessment regula-
5.5.2 Environmental Regulations tions also require the careful assessment of any nega-
tive impacts of reclaimed water projects. Examples of
A number of state and federal environmental regula- common environmental impacts include the visual im-
tions promote the use of reclaimed water by limiting the pact of tanks and reservoirs and the disturbance of un-
amount of water available to communities or restricting derground cultural resources and hazardous materials
the discharge of wastewater into receiving streams. The by underground pipelines. Less common, but equally
ESA in particular has been applied to require water us- significant, projects that provide reclaimed water for ir-
ers to maintain minimum flows in western rivers to pro- rigation over unconfined aquifers are sometimes re-
tect the habitat of various species of fish whose survival quired to demonstrate that use of nonpotable water will
is threatened by increases in water temperature and not contribute to the degradation of underlying ground-
restricted access to breeding grounds. Similarly, as water. In such cases, mitigation may include a monitor-
noted previously, the provisions of the CWA can im- ing program or even additional treatment to match
pose limits on both the quality and quantity of treated groundwater quality. Rules to protect aquifers from in-
effluent an agency is allowed to discharge. A commu- filtration by reclaimed water may also be adopted.
nity with limited water supply or wastewater treatment
capabilities has a real incentive to build a reclaimed The manager of a reclaimed water project must be fa-
water project that augments existing sources and re- miliar with not only the federal and state regulations
duces discharge. guiding the environmental assessment process, but also
their interpretation by the local jurisdiction. For example,
Broader in scope, the National Environmental Policy Act the federal NEPA process requires a public scoping,
(NEPA) requires an assessment of environmental im- dissemination of a Notice of Intent, and at least one
pacts for all projects receiving federal funds, and then public meeting preceding the solicitation and consider-
the mitigation of all significant impacts. Many states also ation of public comments on project impacts and their
have equivalent rules that mandate environmental as- mitigation. By contrast, the California Environmental
sessment and mitigation planning for all projects prior Quality Act (CEQA) mandates specific periods during
to construction. Combined with other laws that protect which project information must be published and en-
biological, scenic, and cultural resources, these laws courages—but does not require—formal hearings dur-
can result in a de facto moratorium on the construction ing project review. However, many lead agencies do
of large-scale water diversions (by dams) that flood the conduct public hearings on environmental assessment
habitat of protected species or inundate pristine can- reports, either independently or in the course of their
yons or areas of historical significance. own public planning process (California Department of
Water Resources, 2002 and State of Florida, 2002).
Even where such projects are allowed to go forward,
they may be less cost-effective than water reuse projects Public review requirements have a significant effect on
that provide a comparable supply with fewer and less project schedules. In addition to the time required to
expensive mitigations. Both federal and state environ- assemble site information and assess the potential im-
mental assessment regulations generally require an eco- pacts of the project, there are mandatory public review
nomic analysis of alternatives, including the “no project” periods that range from 1 to 6 months depending on
alternative in which nothing is built. A number of guid- the nature of the impact and the type of permit required.
ance documents are available suggesting approaches A comprehensive implementation schedule should be
to evaluating both the costs and benefits of water
projects, including water reuse alternatives. It is par-
182
developed and periodically revised, including lengthy resents a clear benefit to the neighborhoods where it is
review procedures, the timing of any public hearings available, the population at large does not always share
that must be held, and the time needed to enact any this view. The project manager of a water reuse pro-
required legislation. It is especially important to identify gram should discuss project plans with representatives
any permit review procedures and whether they can from all affected communities to gauge their sensitivity
occur concurrently or must occur consecutively, and in to this issue, and provide additional information about
what order. reclaimed water to help alleviate neighborhood con-
cerns.
5.5.2.1 Special Environmental Topics
5.6 Legal Issues in Implementation
In addition to the assessment of environmental impacts
commonly encountered by construction of all types of Just as there are many laws and policies that influence
water projects, there are some topics of special con- the planning and overall design of water reuse projects,
cern for the evaluation of reuse projects that reflect the their detailed design, construction, and implementation
safety of reclaimed water use, including growth induce- is also governed by a number of rules and regulations.
ment, environmental justice, and detection of emerging For example, state health departments may require mini-
pathogens. Because the project proponent or lead mum setback distances between potable and
agency must, by law, address all material questions nonpotable pipelines (addressed in Chapter 4), while
raised during the assessment process, these topics dual distribution facilities at the customer’s site may have
should be considered at some point during project plan- to be constructed to meet Uniform Plumbing Code stan-
ning—if only to note that they do not apply. dards. Similarly, a value engineering study of the sys-
tem design may need to be performed in order for the
One environmental impact associated with reclaimed project to qualify for state or federal funding, which may
water projects is the potential for growth inducement. add to the time required for project review and impact
Indeed, where communities are constrained by a lim- the ultimate construction schedule.
ited water supply, the availability of a reliable source of
reclaimed water can allow more growth than might oth- Following construction, various parties need to coordi-
erwise occur. However, there are many other factors nate their efforts to produce, distribute, deliver, and pay
that contribute to the increase in population in an area, for reclaimed water. Each of these parties must be or-
and substitution of nonpotable for potable water may ganized to comply with their contractual obligation, with
only reduce the negative impact a community’s existing appropriate legal agreements between the parties to
water use has on the neighboring environment. In any clearly spell out and enforce responsibilities. Indeed,
case, the question of growth inducement must be ad- there are a range of legal agreements that may be nec-
dressed in evaluating the overall impact of reclaimed essary in order for reclaimed water to be delivered to
water projects. the end customer for reuse.
The question of environmental justice may come up The following section examines laws and regulations
during the permitting of water reuse projects. The term pertaining to project construction (both system wide
“environmental justice” refers to the historic pattern of and on-site), agreements between water wholesalers
siting undesirable environmental facilities (e.g. waste- and retailers, and customer agreements to ensure
water treatment plants, landfills and transfer stations, payment and proper handling of reclaimed water by the
solid waste incinerators) in or adjacent to economically end user.
depressed neighborhoods, whose populations may have
a proportionally large percentage of people of color or 5.6.1 Construction Issues
ethnic minorities. An environmental justice policy at-
tempts to ensure that all such facilities are distributed In general, there are 2 types of regulations associated
equally throughout the community, so that no one seg- with construction of reuse projects:
ment bears a disproportionate share of the impact. This
policy is reinforced by a number of federal rules per- 1) Rules governing system construction, including
taining to environmental review of federally-funded large-diameter mains, pump stations, reservoirs,
projects, the ultimate source of which is the constitu- and other appurtenances required to deliver re-
tional right to equal protection under the law. While it is claimed water to groups of customers
reasonable to argue that reclaimed water distribution
facilities should not be grouped with other more nox- 2) Rules for on-site construction, specifically separa-
ious facilities, and that the use of reclaimed water rep- tion of existing pipelines into potable and
183
nonpotable systems, or the installation of new re- Formal review of all designs to ensure that they
claimed water pipelines separate from the potable meet professional standards and present the
system most “cost-effective” solutions to engineering prob-
lems. This review often includes value engineering
As noted in Chapter 4, state health departments often of the project by professionals who were not involved
promulgate regulations for both system and on-site con- in the original design.
struction, but these rules may be administered by county
or even local health departments. State agencies may Institution of a revenue program identifying addi-
also take the lead in ensuring that project designs meet tional sources of funds to pay for the initial construc-
the requirements for grant funding, but their rules are tion. This is especially true when grant funds are
frequently adopted from existing federal grant or loan provided for construction on a reimbursement ba-
programs. Local agencies may adopt their own special sis, to ensure that the project sponsor will be able
rules incorporating state regulations with additional re- to afford the project without the support of grant
quirements specific to local jurisdictions. funds.
5.6.1.1 System Construction Issues Identification of customers, with some evidence that
they will individually and collectively use a specific
Chapter 4 includes a detailed analysis of water reuse quantity of reclaimed water once it is supplied.
regulations and design guidelines in various states.
These issues are included here only to provide a com- Early in the process, agencies that accept grants or loans
prehensive picture of the overall legal context in which should be aware of the requirements of their particular
reuse projects are developed and built. programs with respect to project design and funding.
Regulations impacting system construction include both 5.6.1.2 On-site Construction Issues
rules governing utility construction in general and rules
specifically aimed at water reuse projects. Regulations Like system construction regulations, standards for con-
governing general utility construction include require- structing distribution pipelines on a customer’s site (e.g.
ments to observe and maintain proper easements for irrigation systems) are usually a combination of state
pipelines and facilities, local codes with respect to ac- regulations and local ordinances specifically regarding
ceptable building materials and construction practices, the use of reclaimed water. State regulations generally
as well as all applicable contract and labor laws (which focus on requirements to prevent accidental or inten-
is beyond the scope of this chapter). Prior to and during tional cross-connection of potable and nonpotable sys-
design of any system construction project, the project tems by separating the pipelines, requiring clear identi-
manager should become familiar with state and local fication of nonpotable facilities, and installing backflow
construction regulations and obtain all necessary per- prevention devices, where appropriate. Local agencies
mits from local agencies, utilities, and other parties so may adopt individual regulations by ordinance, or they
as not to delay project construction. may adopt general regulations like the Uniform Plumb-
ing Code, whose Appendix J includes special rules for
In addition to these general rules, many states have installing reclaimed water lines inside buildings where
rules specifically pertaining to the construction of re- potable water is also served. Once again, the manager
claimed water systems. These regulations frequently of a reuse project should become familiar with all perti-
designate physical separation distances between re- nent regulations during the design phase to ensure that
claimed water and potable and wastewater lines, as well the system meets state and local codes. See Chapter 4
as details for pipeline crossings (e.g., nonpotable be- for a detailed discussion of regulations that have been
low potable). Where it is not practical to maintain mini- adopted in various jurisdictions throughout the U.S.
mum distances, some states allow construction of
nonpotable pipelines adjacent to potable lines provided Once on-site facilities have been constructed, state and
that they are cased in suitable materials. local regulations often require that cross-connection
tests be performed to ensure complete separation be-
From a legal perspective, federal and state grant and tween potable and nonpotable systems. Depending on
loan programs are established by statute and often es- the quality of the water provided and the type of use,
tablish construction-related rules that projects must meet agencies may also restrict the times of use and require
to qualify for funding. Typically these include: periodic inspection and reporting on system operation,
even after the on-site system has been installed and
184
approved. This topic is addressed more closely in Sec- Los Angeles County, which sells reclaimed water to sev-
tion 5.5.3 Customer Agreements. eral purveyors, including the municipal Pomona Water
Department, who then redistributes it to a number of
5.6.2 Wholesaler/Retailer Issues users.
One of the first steps in implementing a water reuse 5.6.2.1 Institutional Criteria
program is the identification of roles and responsibili-
ties for the production and wholesale and retail distribu- In evaluating alternative institutional arrangements, re-
tion of reclaimed water. Many different types of institu- sponsible managers should determine the best munici-
tional structures can be utilized for implementing a wa- pal organizations or departments to operate a reclama-
ter reuse project and responsibility for reclaimed water tion and reuse program. For example, even if the mu-
production and wholesale and retail distribution can be nicipal wastewater treatment service is permitted by law
assigned to different groups depending on their histori- to distribute reclaimed water, it might make more sense
cal roles and technical and managerial expertise (Table to organize a reuse system under the water supply
5-1). agency or under a regional authority (assuming that such
an authority can be established under the law).
The various departments and agencies within a gov-
ernment may come into conflict over the proposed re- Among the criteria that should be considered in devel-
use system unless steps are taken early in the planning oping a viable arrangement is the ability of the proposed
stages to find out who will be involved and to what level. entity to finance the project and enter into the following
Close internal coordination between departments and types of agreements:
branches of local government will be required to en-
sure a successful reuse program. Obtaining the sup- Financing Power – The agency responsible for fi-
port of other departments will help to minimize delays nancing the project should be able to assume
caused by interdepartmental conflicts. bonded indebtedness, if such financing is likely, a
determination should be made as to what kind of
A good example of integrated authority is the Irvine debt could be assumed, how much, and how debt
Ranch Water District in California, an independent, self- must be retired. In addition, the evaluation should
financing entity responsible for all phases of reclaimed include the method for recovering the costs of op-
water production and distribution. Under its original en- erating the water reclamation facility and any re-
abling legislation, the district was strictly a water supply strictions placed on them by virtue of the institutional
entity; but in 1965, state law was amended to assign it structure, including kinds of accounting practices to
sanitation responsibilities within its service area. This be imposed upon the entity.
put the district is in a good position to deal directly, as
one entity, with conventional potable water and Contracting Power – Any constraints on how and
nonpotable water services. Such a position contrasts with whom services can be contracted should be
markedly with other institutional arrangements in the Los identified, as well as the method of approving such
Angeles area, where agency relationships are often agreements. For example, if contracts are required
more complex. For instance, the Pomona Water Recla- with other municipalities, they may have limitations
mation Plant is operated by the Sanitation Districts of on the nature of the corporate structure or legal au-
Table 5-1. Some Common Institutional

Patterns
W holesale
Type of Institutional Arrangement Production Retail Distribution
Distribution
Wastewater Wholesale Water
Separate Authorities Retail Water Company
Treatment Agency Agency
Wastewater Wastewater
Wholesaler/Retailer System Retail Water Company
Treatment Agency Treatment Agency
Joint Powers Authority (for Production and Distribution Joint Powers Joint Powers
Retail Water Company
only) Authority Authority
Water/Wastewater Water/Wastewater Water/Wastewater
Integrated Production and Distribution
Authority Authority Authority
185
thorization of entities with whom they enter into appropriate regard for public health. In fact, the agency
agreement. responsible for reclaimed water distribution should con-
sider adopting an ordinance requiring customers to meet
5.6.2.2 Institutional Inventory and Assessment these standards of performance as a condition of re-
ceiving reclaimed water. Or, if that is not appropriate,
It is necessary to develop a thorough understanding of the agency should encourage the jurisdictions where
which organizations and institutions are concerned with the customers are located to pass such ordinances. In
which aspects of a proposed reuse system. This under- some cases, the requirements for customer performance
standing should include an inventory of required per- have been delegated by the state to the reclaimed wa-
mits and agency review requirements prior to construc- ter purveyor, who in turn is empowered to delegate them
tion and operation of the reuse system, economic ar- to their customers. For instance, where reclaimed wa-
rangements, subsidies, groundwater and surface water ter is still statutorily considered effluent, the agency’s
management policies, and administrative guidelines and permit to discharge wastewater may be delegated by
issues. The following institutions should be involved or the agency to customers whose reuse sites are legally
at a minimum, contacted: federal and state/regulatory considered to be distributed outfalls of the reclaimed
agencies, administrative and operating organizations, water, with concomitant responsibilities.
and general units of government.
The second group of agreements, those agreements
On occasion there is an overlap of agency jurisdiction. made between parties, are more variable and reflect
For example, it is possible for one agency to control the the specific circumstances of the individual projects and
water in the upper reaches of a stream and a separate the customers they serve. These include rates and
agency to control the water in the lower reaches. Un- charges, fees, rebates, terms of service, and other spe-
less these agencies can work together, there may be cial conditions of use between reclaimed water suppli-
little hope of a successful project. ers and customers.
One of the best ways to gain the support of other agen- Not all reclaimed water systems require development
cies is to make sure that they are involved from the be- of a reclaimed water ordinance. This is particularly true
ginning of the project and are kept informed as the where there are a limited number of users. For example,
project progresses. Any potential conflicts between it is not uncommon for a reclaimed water supplier pro-
these agencies should be identified as soon as pos- viding service to a small number of large users, such as
sible. Clarification on which direction the lead agency agriculture or industrial customers, to forego develop-
should follow will need to be determined. By doing this ment of a reuse ordinance and rely instead on user
in the planning stages of the reuse project, delays in agreements. In other instances, such as water inten-
implementation may be avoided. sive activities, a single user may well encumber all of
the water available from a given reclaimed water source.
5.6.3 Customer Issues Where such conditions exist, it is often more appropri-
ate to deal with the customer through the negotiation of
Finally, a key link in the chain of institutional arrange- a reclaimed water user agreement. However, all of the
ments required to implement water reclamation projects customer issues discussed should still be addressed in
is the relationship between the water purveyor and the developing customer agreements.
water customer. Again, there are 2 dimensions to this
arrangement: 5.6.3.1 Statutory Customer Responsibilities
1) The legal requirements established by state and Protective measures are required to avoid cross-con-
local jurisdictions defining the general responsibili- nection of reclaimed water lines with potable water lines.
ties of the 2 parties to protect the public In the event that these responsibilities are codified in a
local ordinance, the ordinance and its provisions should
2) The specific items of agreement between the par- be clearly spelled out in the customer agreement. (Lo-
ties, including commercial arrangements and op- cal ordinances may, in turn, reference state regulations
erational responsibilities on this subject, in which case they should provide spe-
cific citations, in addition to general references, for the
The legal requirements are usually stipulated in state sake of clarity.)
laws, agency guidelines, and local ordinances designed
to ensure that reclaimed water is used safely and with As noted in Chapter 4, required protections may include
the mandatory backflow preventers, use of color-coded
186
pipes for the reclaimed and potable water, and periodic City’s ordinance. A detailed discussion of public infor-
inspection of the system. Inspection is recommended mation programs is provided in Chapter 7.
to determine if there are any illegal connections, viola-
tions of ordinances, or cross-connections. It is impor- 5.6.3.2 Terms of Service and Commercial
tant that the ordinance or agreement state which party Arrangements
is responsible for inspection, under what conditions and
with what frequency inspection may be required, as well Any reclaimed water connection fees and rates associ-
as the consequences if users refuse to perform or allow ated with service should be addressed in an appropri-
inspection (i.e., disconnection of service). ate rate ordinance passed by the local jurisdiction. Re-
claimed water rate ordinances should be separate from
A customer agreement (or the corresponding local or- those regulations that control reclaimed water use, and
dinance) might also specify the type of irrigation sys- may include an “escalator clause” or other means of
tem required in order to receive reclaimed water. This providing for regular increases proportional to the cost
could include the requirements for system design (e.g., of potable water in the local area. (See Chapter 6 for a
a permanent below-ground system) or construction de- discussion of the development of the financial aspects
tails (e.g., specific pipe materials or appurtenances like of water reuse fees and rates).
quick disconnect fittings on hose bibs used for hand
watering). The requirements for an irrigation system In addition to these considerations, it is often helpful to
timer may also be included. establish various other terms of service that are par-
ticular to the water reuse program and its customers.
The customer agreement may also include details on For example, the customer agreement may specify a
financing on-site construction to separate potable and certain level of reliability that may or may not be com-
nonpotable piping systems. It is not uncommon for lo- parable to that of the potable system. When reclaimed
cal agencies to fund all or part of the cost of retrofitting water is used for an essential service, such as fire pro-
a customer’s existing system in order to defray the over- tection, a high degree of system reliability must be pro-
all cost of reclaimed water use. In such instances, the vided. However, if reclaimed water use is limited to irri-
agency may provide grant funds to the customer to cover gation, periodic shortages or service interruption may
the cost of construction or may even construct the fa- be tolerable. The reclaimed water supplier may also wish
cilities at the agency’s expense after obtaining a right- to retain the right to impose water use scheduling as a
of-entry from the customer. In other cases, the cost of means of managing shortages or controlling peak sys-
the construction may be covered by reductions in the tem demands.
normal rates over a period of time.
5.7 Case Studies
Although not included in a customer agreement, a local
ordinance might also define when property owners will 5.7.1 Statutory Mandate to Utilize
be required to connect to the reuse system. Examples Reclaimed Water:
include the requirement for turf grass facilities (e.g., California
parks, golf courses, cemeteries, schools) to connect
when the system becomes available, requirements for Underscoring the fact that potable water resources are
new developments to connect prior to being inhabited, strained and in many cases reclaimed water represents
and requirements for all properties to connect as the the next best supply, some states have integrated re-
reuse system becomes available. These agreements claimed water into the codes and policies that govern
might also specify what equipment is available to the water resources in general. An example of such a case
customer and how it can be used. For example, Florida from California is Article 7, Water Reuse from the Cali-
allows hose bibs on the reclaimed water system but they fornia Code of Regulations, Section 13550, Legislative
must be placed in below-ground, locking boxes. Findings and Declarations; Use of Potable Water for
Nonpotable Uses Prohibited.
Local ordinances may also contain requirements for pub-
lic education about the reuse project, including infor- a) The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the
mation on the hazards of reclaimed water, the require- use of potable domestic water for nonpotable uses,
ments for service, the accepted uses, and the penalties including, but not limited to, cemeteries, golf
for violation. In Cocoa Beach, Florida, reclaimed water courses, parks, highway landscaped areas, and
applicants must be provided an informative brochure to industrial and irrigation uses, is a waste or an un-
explain public safety and reuse in accordance with the reasonable use of the water within the meaning of
Section 2 of Article X of the California Constitution
187
if reclaimed water is available which meets all of son subject to this article to furnish information, which
the following conditions, as determined by the state the state board determines to be relevant to making
board, after notice to any person or entity who may the determination required in subdivision (a).
be ordered to use reclaimed water or to cease using
potable water and a hearing held pursuant to Article 2 HISTORY: Added by Stats.1977, c. 1032, p. 3090,
(commencing with Section 648) of Chapter 1.5 of Divi- Section 1, eff. Sept. 23, 1977. Amended by
sion 3 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations: Stats.1978, c. 380, p. 1205, Section 148;
Stats.1978, c. 894, p. 2821, Section 1, eff. Sept.
(1) The source of reclaimed water is of 20, 1978; Stats.1991, c. 553 (A.B.174), Section 1.
adequate quality for these uses and is avail-
able for these uses. In determining ad-
equate quality, the state board shall con-
sider all relevant factors, including, but not
limited to, food and employee safety, and
level and types of specific constituents in 5.7.2 Administrative Order to Evaluate
the reclaimed water affecting these uses, Feasibility of Water Reclamation:
on a user-by-user basis. In addition, the Fallbrook Sanitary District, Fallbrook,
state board shall consider the effect of the California
use of reclaimed water in lieu of potable
water on the generation of hazardous waste In 1984 the California State Water Resources Control
and on the quality of wastewater discharges Board considered a complaint filed by the Sierra Club
subject to regional, state, or federal permits. to enjoin an unreasonable use of water by a wastewa-
ter discharger (California State Water Resources Con-
(2) The reclaimed water may be furnished for trol Board Order 84-7). At issue was a permit issued by
these uses at a reasonable cost to the user. the Board authorizing the Fallbrook Sanitary District to
In determining reasonable cost, the state discharge up to 1.6 mgd (6000 m3/d) of treated waste-
board shall consider all relevant factors, water to the ocean. The Sierra Club alleged that under
including, but not limited to, the present and the circumstances, the discharge of the district’s waste-
projected costs of supplying, delivering, and water to the ocean, where it cannot be recovered for
treating potable domestic water for these beneficial use, constitutes a waste of water.
uses and the present and projected costs
of supplying and delivering reclaimed wa- Before a wastewater discharger can be required to re-
ter for these uses, and shall find that the claim water, a determination must be made whether the
cost of supplying the treated reclaimed wa- particular discharge constitutes a waste or unreason-
ter is comparable to, or less than, the cost able use of water. Water Code Section 13550, with its
of supplying potable domestic water. focus on prohibiting the use of potable water for
nonpotable applications, provided no guidance to the
(3) After concurrence with the State Depart- State Board in this instance. Thus, in making its deter-
ment of Health Services, the use of re- mination, the State Board sought guidance from the
claimed water from the proposed source will state’s constitutional prohibitions on waste and related
not be detrimental to public health. case law.
(4) The use of reclaimed water for these uses In keeping with the case law, which indicates that a rea-
will not adversely affect downstream water sonable use of water today may be a waste of water at
rights, will not degrade water quality, and is some time in the future, the State Board ordered the
determined not to be injurious to plant life, district, and all future applicants proposing a discharge
fish, and wildlife. of once-used water into the ocean, to evaluate the fea-
sibility of reclaiming its wastewater. The State Board
b) In making the determination pursuant to subdivision insisted that water reclamation be carefully analyzed
(a), the state board shall consider the impact of the as an alternative, or partial alternative, to the discharge
cost and quality of the nonpotable water on each in- of once-used wastewater to the ocean in all water-short
dividual user. areas of the state. In adopting its order, the State Board
recognized the requirements were consistent with the
c) The state board may require a public agency or per- Board’s authority to conduct investigations and prevent
188
waste of water (California Water Code). the city boundaries.
Information provided by Cologne and Maclaggan (1995) Clearly there are other examples of the need for a user
“Legal Aspects of Water Reclamation” in Wastewater agreement when dealing with a larger customer. Or-
Reclamation and Reuse. ange County, Florida, provides over 10 mgd (438 l/s) of
make-up water from its water reclamation facility to the
5.7.3 Reclaimed Water User Agreements Curtis Stanton Energy Center. The Curtis Stanton En-
Instead of Ordinance: ergy Center, located on the east side of Orlando, is
Central Florida owned by the Orlando Utilities Commission and pro-
vides electric power to the greater Orlando area. There
While most reclaimed water systems with multiple us- are unique aspects to the relationship between these 2
ers will require the adoption of a reclaimed water ordi- entities with respect to the supply of reclaimed water for
nance, there may be cases where an ordinance is not cooling purposes including stringent water quality re-
required, particularly when there are a limited number quirements, delivery schedules, fees, and means for
of users in the system. An example would include the handling the blow-down water.
provision of reclaimed water to several large agricul-
tural users where the need for control extends to only a 5.7.4 Interagency Agreement Required for
few parties. In such cases, it may be entirely appropri- Water Reuse:
ate to handle the requirements of the supplier and the Monterey County Water Recycling
users through a user agreement. Project, Monterey, California
Orlando, Florida’s reclaimed water program (in concert The Monterey County Water Recycling Project
with Orange County, Florida) began with about 20 cit- (MCWRP) consists of a tertiary water recycling plant
rus growers under the Water Conserv II Irrigation Pro- and water distribution system. Since beginning opera-
gram in 1986. Orlando/Orange County entered into a tion in the spring of 1998, over 14 billion gallons (53
20-year agreement with each of the growers, with the million m3) of reclaimed water have been produced for
agreement specifying the responsibilities of both the sup- irrigation of food crops such as artichokes, lettuce, cau-
plier and the user. Each of these agreements was iden- liflower, celery, and strawberries. The project was de-
tical except for the volume of flow provision. The agree- signed to reduce seawater intrusion along the north-
ment covered suppliers’ contractual requirements includ- west portion of Monterey County (California) by using
ing “no cost” provision of reclaimed water, water quality reclaimed water instead of groundwater.
limits, minimum pressures, volume of water and deliv-
ery schedules, and indemnity provisions for third party The reclaimed water is supplied by the regional waste-
claims. From the users’ side, the agreements addressed water provider, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution
issues such as requirements to take a certain volume Control Agency (MRWPCA). However, the responsibil-
of water, transfer of land allowances, inspection require- ity for water planning rests with the Monterey County
ments, and buyout provisions if the agreement was ter- Water Resources Agency (MCWRA). Thus, 2 types of
minated prior to the 20 year term. As Orlando’s reclaimed agreements were required. The first was a contract be-
system grew, each of the users, either agricultural or tween MRWPCA and MCWRA for the sale, disposition,
commercial, were required to enter into a user agree- and operation of MCWRP. The second was a series of
ment. For the commercial users, an agreement was ordinances between MCWRA and the growers that gov-
developed similar in some respects to the grower agree- erned the providing of water for the end user. The focus
ment. These commercial agreements evolved over time, of this case study is on the contract between MRWPCA
but all contained the same basic requirements. For ex- and MCWRA.
ample, each of them stated that the customer would
pay the user fee for the reclaimed water when such a The base agreement was signed in 1992 and contained
rate was established by the City. It was not until 2002 the following key provisions:
that the City elected to adopt monthly user rates with
the growth of the reclaimed system for single-family resi- A. Project Ownership, Operation, and Maintenance
dences. These rates were implemented shortly after the
adoption of a reclaimed water ordinance, which gov- The project will be owned and operated by
erns all aspects of the reclaimed water system within MRWPCA
MRWPCA will be reimbursed for the actual
189
cost of its operation Reuse Program:
The City of Orlando, Orange County
MRWPCA will supply water on a daily basis And The Private Sector – Orlando,
except for infrequent shut-downs Florida
Water will be provided in accordance with a The Orange County National Golf Center (OCNGC) is
specified demand schedule a unique and innovative public/private partnership
formed by Orange County, the City of Orlando, and
B. Maintenance of Water Quality Team Classic Golf Services, Inc. The Orange County
National is one of the largest golf centers in the State
Water produced will be suitable for irrigation of Florida, devoted solely to golf and golf instruction.
of food crops
The Orange County National Golf Course project rep-
MRWPCA will monitor water quality resents an expansion of the successful Conserv II re-
use program jointly owned and operated by the City of
Water Quality Committee, which includes lo- Orlando and Orange County, Florida. (See the case
cal growers, will be formed study, 3.8.6 Water Conserv II Chapter 3 for additional
details.) The County and City purchased 660 acres (270
C. Records and Audits hectares) of additional land adjacent to 2 of its original
rapid infiltration basins (RIB) sites in the rolling hills of
Accounting system required that allocates west Orange County, originally intended solely for the
project costs construction of new RIBs. Large RIB sites in this area
typically consist of a series of basins interspersed across
Annual project audit required the site with large areas of open land between them. In
fact, RIBs typically occupy as little as 15 percent of the
D. Project Repairs and Maintenance
site, with the remaining area being available for other
uses. Hoping to achieve multiple uses on the new lands,
Reserve for replacement established
the County commissioned a study to determine the fea-
sibility of building a municipal golf course. The results
of the feasibility study were very encouraging, and the
MCWRA will cover uninsured costs
County and City agreed to pursue this option with the

County acting as the lead-contracting agency.
E. Indemnification and Insurance
During a subsequent regulatory and permitting delay in
Each party will hold each other harmless
the RIB expansion program, an internationally renowned
from damages
golf instructor and course developer, Mr. Phil Ritson,
approached the Orange County Parks Department and
Types and amounts of project insurance are
the Orange County Convention Center in search of land
defined
to construct a public golf course. After considerable de-
bate, all parties agreed to investigate the feasibility of
F. Term of Agreement/Dispute Resolution
co-locating RIBs and golf facilities on Conserv II prop-
erty owned jointly by the City and County.
Provisions for extension of the Agreement
are defined
Project planning for the golf course began in 1991. Us-
ing a four-step process, the team completed the follow-
Options to cancel/terminate are described
ing before construction started: (1) a business feasibil-
ity plan; (2) a request for interested golf course devel-
Requirement to meet and confer in the case
opers; (3) a leasehold agreement; and (4) a capital-fi-
of disputes
nancing plan. Each step was crucial and built on the
work of the previous steps.
Three amendments to the agreement have been nego-
tiated in order to clarify the details of the agreement.
The business feasibility study showed excess demand
Overall, this contract has worked well.
for golf and high potential for a golf course develop-
ment. This analysis, along with the primary environmen-
5.7.5 Public/Private Partnership to Expand tal concerns, such as protection of on-site wetlands
190
acreage and a preliminary survey of threatened and en- 5.7.6 Inspection of Reclaimed Water
dangered species, was used to develop a request for Connections Protect Potable Water
business proposals. In September 1993, after the City Supply:
and County had selected and approved Team Classic Pinellas County Utilities, Florida
Golf Services, Inc. as a partner, the difficult work began
– negotiating terms for the long-term lease, securing Few things are more important than a safe, potable wa-
financing for the deal, and setting up a team which would ter supply. Therefore, cross connection control must be
work to the mutual benefit of all the partners. The major taken seriously and comprehensive inspections are ab-
breakthrough in the project came when Team Classic solutely necessary to ensure the public’s health. In ad-
acquired private sector financing totaling $51.5 million. dition, state and local ordinances and policies must be
A public/private partnership was established through a thoroughly and uniformly enforced. This has become
55 year leasehold agreement. Forming a partnership even more important considering the potential threats
with the municipal government and private sector par- to our drinking water.
ties took 6 years from its conceptual and planning stages
until the start of construction. Pinellas County, Florida, began its Cross Connection
Control and Backflow Prevention Program in 1977. Ma-
In addition to RIBs, the OCNGC incorporated several jor improvements to the inspection process were imple-
other environmental benefits. The site includes a num- mented in 1994 and 2002. Inspections have uncovered
ber of isolated wetland areas that had been degraded remote hose bibs (to docks, etc.), hidden and/or forgot-
through lowered water tables and invasion of undesir- ten valves, and interconnections between the potable
able plant species. The combined golf course RIB and and well systems with inexpensive and leaking ball or
surface water management system was designed to gate valves.
restore and maintain more desirable water elevations,
and the invading plant species were removed and re- Pinellas County requires that the reclaimed water con-
placed by hand-planted native species appropriate to nection remain in the locked position and that the irriga-
the wetland type. The site was developed in a low-den- tion system be separated until the day of inspection.
sity layout, leaving natural upland habitat areas between The owner, or their legal representative, must sign an
the golf holes. application (see copy following this case study) agree-
ing to use the reclaimed water for its intended purpose
Today, 54 holes of golf are open along with a 42-acre and agreeing to inform future owners of these condi-
(17-hectare) practice range and a 9-hole executive tions. Owners must schedule an inspection and are to
course. The facilities also include a 33,000 square-foot be present to operate the entire system. First, the in-
(3,070- m2) clubhouse, 50-room campus lodge, a Pro spector verifies that the backflow prevention device is
Studio with 5,000 square feet (465 m2) of instructional installed on the potable meter. Pinellas County inspec-
space, and an institute housing classrooms and admin- tors check all zones for potential cross-connections and
istrative offices. It is estimated that private sector in- overspray into public waters, sidewalks, and roadways.
vestment will exceed $100M at completion. A “dry” run, with the potable source on and the reclaimed
source off, is then conducted. This helps to limit the pos-
Accessibility has been increased through a multi-tiered sibility of reclaimed water entering the building. Certainly,
fee structure that provides reduced rates to Florida resi- it is far less intrusive and more cost-effective than flush-
dents and even greater reductions for Orlando and Or- ing the potable plumbing system if a cross-connection
ange County residents. Rent is paid to the City and occurs. Then the “wet” run, with the reclaimed water
County in tiered lease payments tied to time and finan- connected and the potable water supply turned off at
cial performance of the golf course development. As the meter, begins. This uncovers any remote connec-
the golf center is more successful, the lease payments tions and any cross-connections under the reclaimed
will increase. pressure. A 1-page report (see copy following this case
study) with a “point of disconnect” (POD) sketch is com-
University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural pleted by the inspector. A reclaimed water curb marker
Sciences (IFAS) is using the site as part of a study, which is glued to the curb indicating that the property has
is co-funded by the County and City. The study is ex- passed the inspection. This information is then entered
amining the effects of reclaimed water use on golf into a database.
courses, including the effects of fertilizer and pesticide
applications. The study results are being used to de- Initially, contractors who are unfamiliar with this process
velop best management practices for golf courses irri- have minor concerns about the length of time for this
gated with reclaimed water. inspection. A typical, well-prepared residential property
191
Pinellas County Utilities – STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES
FOR RECLAIMED WATER CROSS-CONNECTION INSPECTIONS
1. The Pinellas County Utilities Inspector briefly explains the inspection procedure.
2. The Inspector asks the questions necessary to complete the Reclaimed Water Cross-Connection
Inspection form, and records the information on the form.
3. The Inspector checks to see if the reclaimed service line has been connected to the irrigation
system and checks to make sure that the reclaimed service valve is locked off.
4. The Inspector walks around the building, checking to make sure that all hose bibbs have water
flowing from them, and to see if a pressure relief valve is attached, that all reclaimed valve box
covers and exposed pipes located above ground (except risers for bush spray heads) are purple
in color from the factory or painted with Pantone Purple 522C (Florida Building Code - Plumbing
608.8; DEP 62-610.469(7)(f)) using light stable colorants, and that all sprinkler heads are attached.
5. The Inspector asks to see the Point of Disconnect (POD) from the potable, well, or other water
source.
6. The Inspector starts the Dry Run by having the Contractor or Homeowner operate each of the
solenoid valves, one zone at a time, and then checks to see if any other water source is being
used for irrigation.
7. The Inspector asks the Contractor or Homeowner to connect the irrigation system to the reclaimed
service line, and then unlocks the reclaimed water service valve.
8. The Inspector starts the Wet Run, by opening all hose bibbs and then closing the potable water
at the water meter and letting the hose bibbs completely drain. Next, the reclaimed water service
valve and the Homeowner’s shut-off valve are opened, and each irrigation zone on the property
is run, one zone at a time. When each zone is fully pressurized, the Inspector checks each hose
bibb to make sure no water is coming out of them and also checks for over spray.
9. The Inspector turns the potable water back on and then turns off all of the hose bibbs.
10. The Inspector installs a Reclaimed Water curb marker on the curb or road edge.
11. The Inspector makes a drawing on the form, depicting the locations of buildings, streets, driveways,
sidewalks, POD, Pinellas County water meter, and the reclaimed box. Any areas with no irrigation
present are identified, and each component of the drawing is labeled. The location of the POD is
referenced by measurements taken at right angles to the building’s walls.
12. The Inspector returns to the office and enters the information into the MAXIMO Work Management
computer program.
192
Pinellas County Application for Reclaimed Water Service and Cross-Connection Inspection Forms
As reclaimed water service becomes more common, utilities create the forms required to keep track of customers
and address concerns critical to distribution of nonpotable water. The following forms present the application for
service and cross-connection inspection forms currently used by the Pinellas County Utilities in Florida.
193
Owner’s Full Name and Service Address Mailing Address (If different than service address)
Please Print in Ink Please Print in Ink
194
inspection is completed in 45 to 60 minutes. Approxi- the conservation of existing potable water supplies, and
mately 8,000 inspections have been conducted and reduced pollutant loads into Oneida Creek and, ulti-
contractors work successfully with the County’s experi- mately, Oneida Lake, which is part of the Great Lakes
enced inspectors. watershed. The Nation also made its position clear that
the NYSDEC had no jurisdiction over activities on Na-
Information provided by the Pinellas County Utilities De- tion land. The NYSDEC concurred with the Nation and
partment – Cross-Connection Control and Backflow Pre- City’s reclaimed project concept plan, and expressed
vention Program, 1998, Clearwater, Florida. its basic support of the project. It outlined for the Nation
and the City the regulatory framework and procedural
5.7.7 Oneida Indian Nation/Municipal/ steps for expediting the project.
State Coordination Leads to
Effluent Reuse: To formally commit the City to the project, the City Coun-
Oneida Nation, New York cil and Mayor needed to pass a resolution to authorize
the technical staff of its Public Works Department to pro-
The Oneida Indian Nation is in a period of strong eco- ceed with the project. The project team elected to use
nomic growth. The cornerstone of its economic devel- one of the City’s semi-monthly council meetings as the
opment is the Turning Stone Casino Resort, the only forum to present the benefits of the project. Informa-
casino in New York State. The casino and other Nation tional fact sheets were prepared for the meeting, which
enterprises are located in an area of central New York described in simple terms what reclaimed water is, the
with limited water resources. The viability of future en- current uses of reclaimed water by other communities,
terprise development is linked to the Nation’s ability to and the environmental benefits of reclaiming highly
adequately meet its water supply and wastewater treat- treated wastewater. The fact sheets were distributed
ment needs. For the Nation’s planned golf course com- before the meeting so that elected officials, the public,
plex, reclaimed water has been identified as a viable and the news media could prepare questions before the
water resource for irrigation water. Implementing water council meeting. Factual and candid information was
reclamation required inter-governmental cooperation be- presented on water reclamation – its need in the overall
tween the Nation and the reclaimed water supplier, the growth plans of the Nation, its environmental benefits
City of Oneida. Regulatory or jurisdictional cooperation and, through its use, the conservation of limited potable
between the New York State Department of Environ- water supplies. The City Council unanimously approved
mental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the Nation also was a resolution pledging the City’s support and commitment
required because the Nation, being sovereign, is free to cooperate with the Nation on this project.
to establish its own environmental standards for its lands,
while the City is regulated by the NYSDEC. The project The implementation phase of the project included the
was further complicated by the fact that the NYSDEC following major milestones:
does not have reclaimed water quality or treatment stan-
dards for unrestricted reuse. Preparing a draft reuse agreement between the Na-
tion and the City
An estimate of the peak irrigation demand for the
Nation’s proposed golf course complex is 670,000 gpd Completing the State Environmental Quality Review
(2540 m3/d), which is well in excess of the potable wa- (SEQR) process to demonstrate the project’s envi-
ter allocation available to the Nation (150,000-250,000 ronmental benefits and lack of significant negative
gpd, 570-950 m3/d). Investigation of the area’s water impacts
resources identified the City of Oneida’s wastewater
treatment plant as a water source. The City subsequently Obtaining approval from the NYSDEC for a State
agreed to support the Nation’s concept for a water rec- Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES)
lamation project. permit modification to allow the city to deliver its
treated water to the Nation’s irrigation pond
Reclaimed water use is not a common practice in New
York State. In fact, the state does not have reclaimed Completing a preliminary design of the project.
water quality or treatment standards for either restricted
or unrestricted urban reuse. In the initial stages of the Each of these project aspects is discussed below:
project, a stakeholders meeting was held with repre-
sentatives of the Nation, the City, and the NYSDEC. Reuse Agreement – The agreement addresses re-
The environmental benefits of the project were dis- claimed water quality and characteristics. The City of
cussed at this meeting – the reuse of a water resource, Oneida will be responsible for delivering to the Nation
195
reclaimed water of sufficient quality to meet the require- a portion of its secondary treated effluent through the
ments of the City’s SPDES permit and target water qual- reclaimed system filter (i.e., providing tertiary treatment)
ity conditions identified in the reuse agreement. While for discharge to the creek outfall in the event there is no
the entire cost of constructing the project will be borne demand for reclaimed water. This provision would al-
by the Nation, the planned treatment and pumping sys- low the City to discharge a higher quality water to the
tems will be installed at the City’s wastewater treatment creek, but it would not obligate the City to provide a
plant site. The City will be responsible for operating the higher level of treatment than is now required by its ex-
reclaimed water system. As needed, the Nation will con- isting permit. This provision is a secondary benefit, not
tract with a third party for major maintenance and repair the driving force behind the project or future permit re-
work for the facilities and pipeline. quirements.
Other provisions of the agreement include easement In New York State, where water reclamation is not com-
and usage rights to allow the City access to Nation land monly practiced, the Nation, the City of Oneida, the
to operate and monitor the reclaimed system, standard NYSDEC and other local agencies collaborated in an
conditions regarding good faith commitments, a limited inter-governmental and multi-jurisdictional effort to make
waiver of sovereign immunity for the purpose of imple- this project possible. A key reason for the successful
menting and enforcing the agreement, indemnification, collaboration was effective communication among all
notices, and amendments and assignments. project stakeholders. All involved parties shared the
conviction that the project was a win-win proposition for
SEQR Review Process – The first step in the SEQR the Nation, the City, and the environment. Early, two-
process was for the City to formally request “lead way communication that consistently focused on the
agency” status. This required sending a letter of notice, project’s benefits resulted in full and unanimous sup-
along with a basic project description, to the potentially port of the project at each of the legal decision-making
interested agencies (including NYSDEC, County Depart- junctions.
ments of Health, EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, and
New York State Department of Transportation). After a 5.7.8 Implementing Massachusetts’ First
required 30-day public comment period, during which Golf Course Irrigation System
no other agency challenged the City’s lead agency re- Utilizing Reclaimed Water:
quest, the City became lead agency for SEQR purposes. Yarmouth, Massachusetts
An environmental assessment of the project was com- For the first time in the Commonwealth of Massachu-
pleted and resulted in a recommendation to the City setts, reclaimed water is being used as the source wa-
Council that a “negative declaration” (akin to the ”find- ter to irrigate a golf course – The Links at Bayberry Hills,
ing of no significant impact” under NEPA) be declared. which is owned and operated by the Town of Yarmouth.
As an “unlisted action,” the project’s SEQR conclusion This project required a team effort on the part of every-
did not need any additional public comment period af- one involved and many years to successfully implement.
ter the City’s negative declaration.
The town developed a landfill closure/reuse plan that
SPDES Permit Modification – To deliver water to an provided for a 9-hole expansion of the adjacent town-
outfall location other than its permitted discharge point owned Bayberry Hills Golf Course with 7 of the 9 holes
(Oneida Creek), the NYSDEC required that the City com- located over the capped landfill. However, since the town
plete a SPDES permit modification request. Currently, already needed additional drinking water supplies to
the permit application is under review by the NYSDEC. handle peak summer demands in this tourist commu-
It is anticipated that the City will obtain the permit modi- nity, in the spring of 1996, the town began discussions
fication with few exceptions to the proposed plan. Early with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
involvement and open communication with the NYSDEC about utilizing the effluent from the adjacent Yarmouth-
was a key success factor in preparing the application Dennis Septage Treatment Plant (STP) as the source
based on specific guidance form the NYSDEC. of irrigation water.
Preliminary Design – The design report addressed the The Yarmouth-Dennis STP had an existing biological
preliminary design criteria and basis of design for the treatment process followed by sand filtration and ultra-
needed reclaimed water system components, including violet (UV) light disinfection. The original facility was not
operation and control strategies. The system design in- designed to meet stringent reclaimed water standards.
cludes a provision that would allow the City to process After evaluating several options it was determined that
the installation of an ozone treatment system prior to
196
filtration was the most efficient option to meet the pro- ber use period, and can be tested using a fairly inex-
posed standards. pensive means.
A reclaimed water sampling plan was developed in dis- Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and Clostridium perfringens
cussions with the DEP. A two-phase sampling program will be sampled 4 times during the use period, which
was required. The phase 1 preliminary sampling pro- involves expensive testing procedures that take weeks
gram was performed in conjunction with the start-up of to conduct. Although the reclaimed water is not to be
the new ozone treatment system and consisted of daily ingested, it is believed that DEP will utilize this data in
fecal coliform testing and continuous turbidity monitor- the future to develop an even greater confidence level
ing of the final effluent form the UV channel. Results of that the current stringent reclaimed water standards are
the sampling indicated that the proposed fecal coliform protective of public health.
and turbidity standards could be attained. The phase 2
program consisted of comparing the results of influent Groundwater Protection Management Plan
septage samples from the equalization tanks and final
effluent samples from the UV channel for the following Because of the unique way in which the reclaimed wa-
parameters: Enteric Viruses, Giardia and ter portion of the groundwater discharge permit was
Cryptosporidium, Heterotrophic Plate Counts (HPC), written, the implementation of reclaimed water requires
Coliphage (Male-specific and Somatic), and Clostridium close coordination between the treatment plant staff and
perfingens. Results for these parameters indicated simi- the golf course staff. Therefore, a Groundwater Protec-
lar log removals with and without the ozone treatment. tion Management Plan was developed to address these
coordination issues. The overall purpose of the plan is
Development of Groundwater Discharge Permit to to protect the area groundwater. To achieve that pur-
Use Reclaimed Water pose, the plan provides an understanding of the issues
involved and defines the responsibilities of the various
The sampling programs were developed to convince parties. The treatment plant staff are responsible for the
DEP that utilizing reclaimed water in Yarmouth was vi- groundwater discharge permit compliance, which in-
able and that the interim guidelines could be attained. cludes the reclaimed water applied as well as the water
However, there were several steps necessary to acquire collected in the underflow from the golf course. The golf
the revised groundwater discharge permit for the project. course staff are responsible for the operation and main-
In total, it took 4 years to acquire the permit that finally tenance of the Links at Bayberry Hills. Thus, without
allowed the reclaimed water to be utilized. The first step, close coordination between the 2 parties, permit com-
which began in 1996, involved working closely with the pliance would be difficult.
DEP to develop a means for permitting this type of facil-
ity; Massachusetts was one of the remaining states that Based on the coordination requirements and the unique-
did not have guidelines or regulations for permitting re- ness of this golf course, there were 4 basic elements
claimed water facilities. Ultimately, DEP issued a set of addressed within the Groundwater Protection Manage-
“Interim Guidelines on Reclaimed Water” in May 1999 ment Plan. The first element deals with the schedule for
(Revised January 2000). These guidelines provided a using the reclaimed water. Town water will be used dur-
mechanism for permitting reclaimed water projects un- ing the spring months when the golf course staff will be
der the DEP’s groundwater discharge permit regulations. “waking the course up” with different fertilizer applica-
tions depending on the previous winter weather condi-
A site hearing process allowed for a public comment tions. This is also a period when the town can use its
period regarding modifications to the existing Yarmouth- own potable water supply. However, in the summer
Dennis STP groundwater discharge permit so that it months, when town water supplies are stretched, re-
would include the reclaimed water and new application claimed water will be used on the golf course. It is an-
site. Based on all the work that had been done leading ticipated this will occur beginning in July and will con-
up to these events, there were very few comments re- tinue until November, or until the reclaimed water sup-
ceived and the new groundwater discharge permit was plies of up to 21 million gallons by permit are depleted.
issued on June 28, 2000.
The second element deals with the requirement for the
DEP added some additional monitoring parameters to use of slow release fertilizers. The third element deals
the reclaimed water portion of the permit to help de- with the need to reduce the quantity of commercially-
velop a historical database of viral and pathogenic val- applied fertilizer when reclaimed water is in use. The
ues. The MS2 Coliphage, a viral indicator, will be
sampled twice per month for the March through Novem-
197
fourth element addresses the coordination between the State of California. 1998. “General Plan Guidelines”,
treatment plant staff and the golf course staff so that Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, (Novem-
the above 3 elements are being done. Thus, an approval ber, 1998), p.10. http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/
form requiring the signature of both parties has been pub_org.html
developed for use prior to any fertilizer application on
the golf course. State of Florida, Florida’s Growth Management Act.
2002. Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. The Local
It is believed that the Groundwater Protection Manage- Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Devel-
ment Plan addresses the key issues between the treat- opment Act. Tallahassee, Florida.
ment plant staff and the golf course staff so that, over
time, as personnel change, the Town of Yarmouth will State of Florida, Sunshine Law. 2002. Chapter 286,
have an adequately maintained golf course and ad- Florida Statutes. Tallahassee, Florida.
equately protected groundwater supplies. It will also pro-
vide the ability to comply with the reclaimed water per- Blalock Irrigation District vs. The City of Walla Walla
mit limits. Implementation of the reclaimed water project Case 18888 Decree. March 25, 1927.
for the Town of Yarmouth has been a challenge for all
parties involved due to its innovative nature for the Com- Superior Court of the State of Washington. City of Walla
monwealth of Massachusetts. However, all parties Walla vs. Blalock Irrigation District Case 54787 Decree.
worked together to find a way to get this project imple- September 28, 1971.
mented without compromising public health issues.
Water Reclamation and Reuse, Water Quality Manage-
5.8 References ment Library Volume 10, edited by Takashi Asano, CRC
Press 1998.
California Department of Water Resources Recycled
Water Task Force. White Paper of the Public Informa- Weinberg, E. and R.F. Allan. 1990. Federal Reserved
tion, Education and Outreach Workgroup on Better Pub- Water Rights. In: Water Rights of the Fifty States and
lic Involvement in the Recycled Water Decision Process Territories, American Water Works Association, Den-
(December, 2002 Draft). ver, Colorado.
California State Water Resources Control Board. 1984.

“In The Matter Of The Sierra Club, San Diego Chapter”
Order 84-7.
Cologne, Gordon and Peter MacLaggan. 1995. “Legal

Aspects of Water Reclamation” in Wastewater Recla-
mation And Reuse (ed. Takashi Asano) American Wa-
ter Works Association (Denver CO) ISBN: 1566763053
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 92-500,

33 U.S.C. 1251-1387.

“Water Resource Implementation Rule.” Chapter 62-40,
Florida Administrative Code. Florida Department of En-
vironmental Protection. Tallahassee, Florida.
Rosenblum, Eric. “Nonpotable Recycling in San Jose,

California Leads Silicon Valley Towards Sustainable
Water Use”, Proceedings of the Advanced Wastewater
Treatment, Recycling and Reuse Conference, Milan,
Italy, September 14-16, 1998.
Sheikh, Bahman., E. Rosenblum. “Accounting for the

Benefits of Water Reuse,” Proceedings, AWWA/WEF
1998 Water Reuse Conference (February, 1998)
198
CHAPTER 6
Funding Water Reuse Systems
Like the development of other utilities, the implementa- Cost-Effectiveness – the analysis of alternatives us-
tion of reuse facilities generally requires a substantial ing an effectiveness scale as a measurement con-
capital expense. Capital improvements at the wastewa- cept. EPA formulated “Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
ter treatment facility are normally required, but trans- Guidelines” as part of its Federal Water Pollution
mission lines can also add significantly to capital costs. Control Act (40 CFR Part 35, Subpart E, Appendix
In an urban setting, reuse lines must often be added to A). This technique requires the establishment of a
the existing transmission infrastructure, requiring care- single base criterion for evaluation, such as annual
ful construction processes. And unless agricultural, in- water production of a specific quality expressed as
dustrial, and recreational reuse sites are close to re- an increase in supply or decrease in demand. Al-
claimed water sources, these sites will require new trans- ternatives are ranked according to their ability to
mission facilities as well. produce the same result. The alternatives can in-
clude such factors as their impact on quality of life,
In addition to the capital costs associated with reclaimed environmental effects, etc. which are not factored
water facilities, there are also additional operation, main- into a cost/benefit analysis.
tenance, and replacement (OM& R) costs, including those
associated with power and water quality monitoring, as Cost/Benefit – the relationship between the cost of
well as administrative costs, such as customer billing. resources and the benefits expected to be realized
And, in almost all cases, implementation of a reuse sys- using a discounted cash-flow technique. Non-mon-
tem involves enhanced cross-connection programs with etary issues are not factored into these calculations.
an associated increase in cost. These costs are typi-
cally calculated into a reclaimed water rate, expressed Financial Feasibility – the ability to finance both the
either as a gallonage charge or a fixed monthly fee. Even capital costs and OM&R costs through locally raised
in situations where reclaimed water systems are devel- funds. Examples of revenue sources include user
oped in response to effluent disposal needs and custom- fees, bonds, taxes, grants, and general utility oper-
ers are encouraged to make use of an “unlimited” supply ating revenues.
at little to no charge, provisions should still be made for
the day when conservation of the reclaimed water supply In the context of these definitions, the first analysis to
will be required. Another factor impacting costs is the be performed when considering a reuse system would
potential drop in revenues associated with a reduction in be a cost-effectiveness analysis. This involves analyz-
potable water use after implementation of a reuse sys- ing the relevant costs and benefits of providing addi-
tem. This loss of revenue can be particularly challenging tional water from fresh water sources versus reclaimed
if the water and wastewater systems are owned by differ- water.
ent utilities. Consequently, multiple financial alternatives
should be investigated to fund a reclaimed water sys- Benefits that can be considered include:
tem.
Environmental - the reduction of nutrient-rich efflu-
6.1 Decision Making Tools ent discharges to surface waters
To clarify the issues to be discussed, some general terms - the conservation of fresh water supplies
are defined as follows: - reduction of saltwater intrusion
199
Economic - delay in or avoidance of expanding ex- ous externally generated capital funding source alterna-
isting water supply and treatment facilities tives include:
Delay in, or elimination of, enhancements to the ex- Local Government Tax-Exempt Bonds – The total
isting potable water treatment systems capital cost of construction activities for a reuse
project could be financed from the sale of long-term
Delay in, or elimination of, enhancements to the ex- (20-30 year) bonds.
isting wastewater treatment systems
Grants and State Revolving Fund (SRF) Programs –
Shared benefits should also be considered. For instance, Capital needs could be funded partially through state
if a benefit is received by water customers from a delay or local grants programs or through SRF loans, par-
in expanding the water supply (deferred rate increase), ticularly those programs designed specifically to sup-
a portion of reclaimed water costs could be shared by port reuse.
existing and future water customers. A similar analysis
can also be made for wastewater customers who ben- Capital Contribution – At times, there are special agree-
efit from a delay in, or elimination of, increased levels of ments reached with developers or industrial users,
treatment associated with more stringent discharge lim- requiring the contribution of either assets or money
its. to offset the costs of a particular project.
The cost/benefit analyses are conducted once feasible 6.2.1 Local Government Tax-Exempt
alternatives are selected. The emphasis of these analy- Bonds
ses is on defining the economic impact of the project on
various classes of users, (e.g., industrial, commercial, A major source of capital financing for local governments
residential, agricultural). The importance of this step is is to assume debt – that is, to borrow money by selling
that it relates the marketability of reuse relative to alter- municipal bonds, which enables the municipality to
native sources, based on the end use. To elaborate, given spread the cost of the project over many years. This
the cost of supplying reclaimed water versus fresh water approach reduces the annual amount that must be
for urban use, what is the relationship of water demand raised as compared to funding the entire capital project
to price, given both abundant and scarce resources? The on a “pay-as-you-go” basis from rate revenues. With
present worth value of the benefits are compared to de- many water reclamation projects, local community sup-
termine whether the project is economically justified and/ port will be required to finance the project. If revenue
or feasible. As part of meeting a requirement to secure a bond financing is used, this matches the revenue stream
100-year water supply, an expansion of the reuse sys- from the use of reclaimed facilities with the costs of the
tem was found to be more cost-effective than traditional debt used for construction, but does not normally re-
effluent disposal coupled with increasing water supplies quire voter approval. However, voter approval may be
(Gray et al., 1996). required for general obligation bonds. The types of bonds
commonly used for financing public works projects are:
Finally, financial feasibility determines whether sufficient
financial resources can be generated to construct and General Obligation Bonds – Repaid through col-
operate the required reclamation facilities. Specific fi- lected general property taxes or service charge rev-
nancial resources available will be explained in subsec- enues, and generally require a referendum vote.
tions 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4. Underlying credit support is the full faith taxation
power of the issuing entity.
6.2 Externally Generated Funding
Alternatives Special Assessment Bonds – Repaid from the re-
ceipts of special benefit assessments to properties
It is difficult to create a totally self-supporting reuse pro- (and in most cases, backed by property liens if not
gram financed solely by reclaimed water user fees. To paid by property owners). Underlying credit support
satisfy the capital requirements for implementation of a is the property tax liens on the specially benefited
reuse program, the majority of the construction and re- properties.
lated capital costs are often financed through long-term
water and wastewater revenue bonds, which spread the Revenue Bonds – Repaid through user fees and
cost over multiple decades. Supplemental funds may be service charges derived from operating reuse facili-
provided by grants, developer contributions, etc., to miti- ties (useful in regional or sub-regional projects be-
gate or offset the annual revenue requirement. The vari- cause revenues can be collected from outside the
200
geographical limits of the borrower). Underlying credit ating an adequate stream of revenues through local
support is the pledged revenues, such as user fees sources.
or special charges.
6.2.2.1 State Revolving Fund
Short-Term Notes – Usually repaid through general
obligation or revenue bonds. These are typically The SRF is a financial assistance program established
used as a method of construction or interim financ- and managed by the states under general EPA guidance
ing until they can be incorporated into the long-term and regulations and funded jointly by the federal govern-
debt. ment (80 percent) and state matching money (20 per-
cent). It is designed to provide financial assistance to
The local government must substantiate projections of local agencies to construct water pollution control facili-
the required capital outlay, of the anticipated OM&R ties and to implement non-point source, groundwater, and
costs, of the revenue-generating activities (i.e., the user estuary management activities, as well as potable water
charge system, etc.), and of the “coverage” anticipated facilities.
– that is, the extent to which anticipated revenues will
more than cover the anticipated capital and OM&R costs. Under SRF, states make low-interest loans to local agen-
A local government finance director, underwriter, or fi- cies. Interest rates are set by the states and must be
nancial advisor can describe the requirements to justify below current market rates and may be as low as 0 per-
the technical and economic feasibility of the reuse project. cent. The amount of such loans may be up to 100 per-
Since reuse facilities are often operated as part of a wa- cent of the cost of eligible facilities. Loan repayments
ter and wastewater utility fund, bonds issued will prob- must begin within 1 year after completion of the facility
ably be issued by the combined utility and thus any fi- and must be completely amortized in 20 years. Repay-
nancial information presented will be for a combined en- ments are deposited back into the SRF to be loaned to
terprise fund. The reuse operation will most likely not other agencies. The cash balance in the SRF may be
have to stand alone as a self-sufficient operation and will invested to earn interest, which must accrue to the SRF.
appear financially stronger.
States may establish eligibility criteria within the broad
6.2.2 State and Federal Financial limits of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Assistance (CWSRF). Basic eligible facilities include secondary and
advanced treatment plants, pump stations, and force
Where available, grant programs are an attractive fund- mains needed to achieve and maintain NPDES permit
ing source, but require that the proposed system meets limits. States may also allow for eligible collection sew-
grant eligibility requirements. These programs reduce ers, combined sewer overflow correction, stormwater fa-
the total capital cost borne by system beneficiaries thus cilities, and the purchase of land that is a functional part
improving the affordability and viability of the project. of the treatment process.
Some funding agencies have an increasingly active role
in facilitating water reuse projects. In addition, many Water conservation and reuse projects eligible under the
funding agencies are receiving a clear legislative and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) include
executive mandate to encourage water reuse in sup- installation of meters, installation or retrofit of water effi-
port of water conservation. cient devices such as plumbing fixtures and appliances,
implementation of incentive programs to conserve water
To be financially successful over time, a reuse program, (e.g., rebates, tax breaks, vouchers, conservation rate
however, must be able to “pay for itself.” While grant structures), and installation of dual-pipe distribution sys-
funds may underwrite portions of the capital improve- tems as a means of lowering costs of treating water to
ments necessary in a reuse project – and in a few states, potable standards.
state-supported subsidies can also help a program to
establish itself in early years of operation – grant funds In addition to providing loans to water systems for water
should not be expanded for funding needs associated conservation and reuse, states can use their DWSRF
with annual operating costs. In fact, most federally- funded set-aside funds to promote water efficiency through ac-
grant and loan programs explicitly prohibit the funding of tivities such as: development of water conservation plans,
OM&R costs. Once the project is underway, the program technical assistance to systems on how to conserve water
should strive to achieve self-sufficiency as quickly as (e.g., water audits, leak detection, rate structure consul-
possible – meeting OM&R costs and debt service re- tation), development and implementa-
quirements of the local share of capital costs by gener-
201
tion of ordinances or regulations to conserve water, a rural area varies depending upon the statutory lan-
drought monitoring, and development and implementa- guage authorizing the program. Most of these programs
tion of incentive programs or public education programs are administered through the USDA Rural Development
on conservation. Office in each state.
States select projects for funding based on a priority sys- Rural Utilities Service (RUS) offers funds through the
tem, which is developed annually and must be subjected Water and Waste Program, in the form of loans, grants,
to public review. Such priority systems are typically struc- and loan guarantees. The largest is the Water and Waste
tured to achieve the policy goals of the state and may Loan and Grant Program, with approximately $1.5 billion
range from “readiness to proceed” to very specific water available nationwide per year. This program offers finan-
quality or geographic area objectives. Each state was cial assistance to public bodies, eligible not-for-profits
allowed to write its own program regulations for SRF fund- and recognized tribal entities for development (including
ing, driven by its own objectives. Some states, such as construction and non-construction costs) of water and
Virginia, provide assistance based on assessing the wastewater infrastructure. Unincorporated areas are typi-
community’s economic health, with poorer areas being cally eligible, as are communities with less than 10,000
more heavily subsidized with lower interest loans. people. Grants may be available to communities meet-
ing income limits to bring user rates down to a level that
Further information on the SRF program is available from is reasonable for the serviced population. Interest rates
each state’s water pollution control agency. for loan assistance depend on income levels in the served
areas as well. The Rural Development offices act to over-
6.2.2.2 Federal Policy see the RUS-funded projects from initial application until
the operational stage.
The Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, supports
water reuse projects through the following provisions: Other Rural Development programs are offered by the
Rural Housing Service and the Rural Business-Coopera-
Section 201 of PL 92-500 was amended to ensure tive Service. Rural Housing Service offers the Commu-
that municipalities are eligible for “201” funding only nity Facilities Program that may fund a variety of projects
if they have “fully studied and evaluated” techniques for public bodies, eligible not-for-profits, and recognized
for “reclaiming and reuse of water.” A 201 facility tribal entities where the project serves the community.
plan study must be completed to qualify for state This includes utility projects and may potentially include
revolving loan funds. a water reuse project, if proper justification is provided.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service offers the Ru-
Section 214 stipulates that the EPA administrator ral Business Enterprise Grant program to assist grant-
“shall develop and operate a continuing program of ees in designing and constructing public works projects.
public information and education on water reclama- A water reuse system serving a business or industrial
tion and reuse of wastewater. . .” park could potentially receive grant assistance through
this program. An individual eligible business could apply
Section 313, which describes pollution control ac- for loan guarantees through the Rural Business-Coop-
tivities at federal facilities, was amended to ensure erative Service to help finance a water reuse system
that wastewater treatment facilities will utilize “re- that would support the creation of jobs in a rural area.
cycle and reuse techniques: if estimated life-cycle
costs for such techniques are within 15 percent of Other agencies that have funded projects in cooperation
the most cost-effective alternative.” with USDA may provide assistance for water reuse
projects if eligibility requirements are met include the
6.2.2.3 Other Federal Sources Economic Development Administration, Housing and
Urban Development (Community Development Block
There are a number of federal sources that might be Grant), Appalachian Regional Commission, and the
used to generate funds for a water reuse project. While Delta Regional Commission.
there are many funding sources, only certain types of
applicants or projects are eligible for assistance under Finally, the Bureau of Reclamation, authorized under
each program. Title XVI, the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwa-
ter Study and Facilities Act; PL 102-575, as amended,
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has sev- Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation Act of
eral programs that may provide financial assistance for 1996; PL 104-266, Oregon Public Lands Transfer and
water reuse projects in rural areas, but the definition of Protection Act of 1998; PL 105-321, and the Hawaii
202
Water Resources Act of 2000; PL 106-566, provides for projects have been completed and are currently provid-
the Bureau to conduct appraisal and feasibility studies ing reclaimed water for a variety of non-potable uses.
on water reclamation and reuse projects. The Bureau
can then fund construction of reuse projects after Con- A comprehensive water reuse study in California con-
gressional approval of the appropriation. This funding cluded that funding was the primary constraint in imple-
source is restricted to activities in the 17 western states menting new water reuse projects (California State Wa-
unless otherwise authorized by Congress. Federal par- ter Resources Control Board, 1991).
ticipation is generally up to 25 percent of the capital cost.
To assist with the financial burden, grant funds are now
Information about specific funding sources can be found available from the California Department of Water Re-
in the Catalog of Federal and Domestic Assistance, pre- sources for water conservation and groundwater man-
pared by the Federal Office of Management and Bud- agement. Proposition 13 Safe Drinking Water, Clean
get and available in federal depository libraries. It is the Water, Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Bond
most comprehensive compilation of the types and Act provides funds for:
sources of funding available.
Agriculture water conservation capital outlay
6.2.2.4 State, Regional, and Local Grant and
Loan Support Groundwater recharge construction loans
State support is generally available for wastewater treat- Groundwater storage construction grants
ment facilities, water reclamation facilities, conveyance
facilities, and, under certain conditions, for on-site distri- Infrastructure rehabilitation feasibility study grants
bution systems. A prime source of state-supported fund-
ing is provided through SRF loans. Infrastructure rehabilitation construction grants
Although the number of states that have developed other Urban streams restoration program grants
financial assistance programs that could be used for
reuse projects is still limited, there are a few examples. Urban water conservation capital outlay grants
Texas has developed a financial assistance program
that includes the Agriculture Water Conservation Grants AB303, the Local Groundwater Management Assistance
and Loans Program, the Water Research Grant Pro- Act of 2000, also provides grants. Funds have been used
gram, and the Rural Water Assistance Fund Program. by Daly City, California to develop a groundwater-moni-
There is also a planning grant program – Regional Fa- toring program and to refine models of the Westside Ba-
cility Planning Grant Program and Regional Water Plan- sin aquifer.
ning Group Grants – that funds studies and planning
activities to evaluate and determine the most feasible The passage of California’s Proposition 50 in November
alternatives to meet regional water supply and waste- 2002 makes funds available for projects to “protect ur-
water facility needs. ban communities from drought, increase supplies of clean
drinking water, reduce dependence on imported water,
Local or regional agencies, such as the regional water reduce pollution of rivers, lakes, streams, and coastal
management districts in Florida, have taxing authority. waters, and provide habitat for fish and wildlife.” This
In Florida, a portion of the taxes collected has been allo- includes financing for “groundwater recharge and man-
cated to the funding of alternative water sources includ- agement projects.” The State Water Resources Control
ing reuse projects, which have been given a high priority, Board (SWRCB) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
with as much as 50 percent of a project’s transmission have played major roles in providing capital funding for
system eligible for grant funding. Various methods of local projects.
prioritization exist, with emphasis on those projects that
are of benefit to multi-jurisdictional users. 6.2.3 Capital Contributions
The State of Washington began its process of address- In certain circumstances, where reclaimed water is to be
ing water reclamation and reuse issues by passing the used for a specific purpose, such as cooling water, it
Reclaimed Water Act of 1992. In 1997, the State Legis- may be possible to obtain the capital financing for new
lature provided $10 million from the Centennial Clean Wa- transmission facilities directly from one or more major
ter Fund to help fund 5 demonstration projects. These users that benefit from the available reclaimed water
supply.
203
One example of such a capital contribution would be con- negligible fee may have been adopted to support the “all
struction of a major reuse transmission line by a devel- you can use” mentality. Very often a fixed rate will be
oper who then transfers ownership to the utility for opera- used to simplify billing and eliminate penalties for over-
tion and maintenance. Another example is a residential use in the form of increased costs. While such an ap-
housing developer, golf course, or industrial user who proach may seem to be justified when a project begins,
may provide the pipeline, financing for the pipeline, or this rationale for basing user fees falls by the wayside as
provide for a pro-rata share of construction costs for a water resources become stressed and reclaimed water
specific pipeline. In the event the private entity initially supplies become a valuable resource. User charges would
bears the entire capital cost of the improvement, such be utilized to generate a stream of revenues with which
an approach may include provisions for reimbursement to defray the OM&R costs of the reuse facility and the
to the entity from future connections to the contributed debt service of any bonds or loans issued.
facility for a specified period of time.
In a reclaimed water user charge system, the intent of
6.3 Internally Generated Funding an equitable rate policy is to allocate the cost of provid-
Alternatives ing reuse services to the recipient. With a user charge
system, it is implicit that there be select and identifiable
While the preceding financing alternatives describe the user categories to which the costs of treatment and dis-
means of generating construction capital, there is also tribution can be allocated.
a need to provide funding for OM&R costs, as well as
debt service on borrowed funds. Examples of various There are 2 prime means of allocating costs that are to
internally-generated funding sources are highlighted, with be incorporated into a user charge: the proportionate share
details, in the following subsections. cost basis and the incremental cost basis. These 2 meth-
ods are discussed in more detail in Section 6.4.
In most cases, a combination of several funding sources
will be used to recover capital and OM&R costs. The Determining an equitable rate policy requires consider-
following alternatives may exist for funding water reuse ation of the different service needs of individual resi-
programs. dential users (single-family and multi-family) as compared
to other “larger” users with bigger irrigable areas, such as
Reclaimed water user charges golf courses and green spaces. In many cases, a lower
user rate can be justified for such large users than for
Operating budget and cash reserves of the utility residential customers. As an example, large users may
receive reclaimed water into on-site storage facilities and
Local property taxes and existing water and waste- then subsequently repump the water into the irrigation
water user charges system, enabling the supplier to deliver the reclaimed
water, independent of daily peak demands, using low-
Public utility tax pressure pumps rather than providing high-pressure de-
livery on demand as required by residential users. Some
Special assessments or special tax districts multi-family customers may be treated as “large” users
under this example, unless the reclaimed water is deliv-
Connection fees ered at high pressure directly into the irrigation system.
This flexibility in delivery and the low-pressure require-
The City of Reno, Nevada, used a combination of spe- ments can often justify the lower rate. At the same time,
cial assessment districts bonds, revenue bonds, devel- keeping reclaimed water rates competitive for large us-
oper agreements, connection fee charges, user fees, ers when considering alternative sources of water, such
and general fund advances as part of the creation of its as groundwater, is another consideration.
reclaimed water system (Collins, 2000).
The degree of income from other sources, such as the
6.3.1 Reclaimed Water User Charges general fund and other utility funds, must be consid-
ered in determining the balance of funding that must come
The first source of funding considered should be a from reuse rates. Residential user fees must be set to
charge to those receiving reclaimed water services. As make water reuse an attractive option to potable water or
noted in the introduction, reclaimed water systems may groundwater. Alternatively, local regulations can prescribe
well begin life as effluent disposal programs. Under such that reclaimed water must be used for irrigation and other
circumstances, reclaimed water “customers” are likely outdoor nonpotable uses in areas where it is available so
to be encouraged to use as much water as they want. A usage becomes less sensitive to pricing. Although re-
204
claimed water may have to be priced below potable wa- revenues designated for expenses associated with the
ter to encourage its use, reuse rates may also be set to reuse project. Similarly, the user charge currently paid
discourage indiscriminate use by instituting volume (per for water and wastewater services could be increased.
gallon) charges rather than a flat fee; however, as re- Like using the operating budget or cash reserves, the
claimed water has become recognized as an increas- use of property taxes or user charges may be desirable
ingly valuable element of an overall water resources plan, if the expenditures for the project are not anticipated to
the trend is to meter reuse consumption to better monitor be sizable or if a general benefit accrues to the entire
and control its use. community.
6.3.2 Operating Budget and Cash Ad valorem property taxes, unlike user charges, raise
Reserves funds on the basis of assessed value of all taxable prop-
erty, including residential, commercial, and industrial.
Activities associated with the planning and possible pre- Property value can be an appropriate means of allocat-
liminary design of reuse facilities could be funded out of ing the costs of the service improvements if there is a
an existing wastewater utility/department operating bud- “general good” to the community. It is also a useful
get. A water supply agency seeking to expand its water means of allocating the cost of debt service for a project
resources would find it appropriate to apply a portion of in which there is general good to the community and in
its operating funds in a similar way. It could be appro- which the specific OM&R costs are allocated to the di-
priate, for example, to utilize funds from the operating rect beneficiaries. A contribution of ad valorem prop-
budget for planning activities or business costs associ- erty tax revenues might be appropriate for such reuse
ated with assessing the reuse opportunity. Furthermore, applications as:
if cash reserves are accruing for unspecified future capi-
tal projects, those funds could be used for design and Irrigation of municipal landscaping
construction costs, or a portion of the operating revenues
from utility revenues can be set aside in a cash reserve Fire protection
for future needs.
Water for flushing sewers
The obvious advantage of using this alternative source
of funding is that the utility board or governing body of Groundwater recharge for saltwater intrusion
the water and/or wastewater department or utility can barriers
act on its own initiative to allocate the necessary re-

sources. These sources are especially practical when Parks and recreational facility irrigation
relatively limited expenditures are anticipated to imple-
ment or initiate the reuse program, or when the reuse All such projects have benefits, either to the residents
project will provide a general benefit to the entire com- of the municipality in general, or to those who can be
munity (as represented by the present customers of the isolated in an identifiable special district.
utility). In addition, utilizing such resources is practical
when the reclaimed water will be distributed at little or Resources generated by increasing any existing user
no cost to the users, and therefore, will generate no charges can be used in a similar manner. However, to
future stream of revenues to repay the cost of the project. do so equitably, benefits of the proposed project should
While it is ideal to fully recover all direct costs of each primarily accrue to those presently utilizing the services
utility service from customers, it may not be practical of the water or wastewater utility. This would be the case,
during the early phases of a reuse system implementa- for example, when water reuse precludes the need to
tion. develop costly advanced treatment facilities or a new
water supply source.
6.3.3 Property Taxes and Existing User
Charges Contributions from the water and wastewater systems
may be warranted whenever there is a reduction in the
If the resources available in the operating budget or the average day or peak day water demand or when the
cash reserves of the utility are not sufficient to cover reuse system serves as a means of effluent disposal
the necessary system, OM&R activities, and capital fi- for the wastewater system. The City of St. Petersburg,
nancing debt, then another funding source to consider Florida, for example, provides as much as 50 percent of
is revenues generated by increasing existing levies or the urban reuse system operations costs from water and
charges. If some utility costs are currently funded with wastewater system funds. The significant reduction in
property taxes, levies could be increased and the new potable water demand achieved through water reuse has
205
allowed the City to postpone expansion of its water treat- Special assessments may be based on lot front footage,
ment plant. lot square footage, or estimated gallon use relative to
specific customer types. This revenue alternative is es-
6.3.4 Public Utility Tax pecially relevant if the existing debt for water and waste-
water precludes the ability to support a reuse program,
The State of Washington took a rather innovative ap- or if the area to be served is an independent service area
proach to funding when it passed a major water bill in with no jurisdictional control over the water or wastewa-
2001. The new law addresses several key areas in water ter systems. The implementation of reclaimed water sys-
resource management, including an incentive program tems will reduce potable water consumption, correspond-
to promote conservation and distribution of reclaimed ing to a reduction of revenues. This must be factored
water. The Public Utility Tax (Chapter 82.16 Revised Code into the funding analysis.
of Washington) is levied on gross income of publicly and
privately-owned utilities. The incentive program (Chapter 6.3.6 Impact Fees
237), which exempts 75 percent of the amounts received
for reclaimed water services for commercial and indus- Impact fees, or capacity fees, are a means of collecting
trial uses, also allows reclaimed water utilities to deduct the costs of constructing an infrastructure element, such
from gross income 75 percent of amounts expended to as water, wastewater, or reuse facilities, from those new
improve consumer water use efficiency or to otherwise customers benefiting from the service. Impact fees col-
reduce the use of water by the consumer. (Focus, Wash- lected may be used to generate construction capital or
ington State Department of Ecology, August 2001) Ex- to repay borrowed funds. Frequently, these fees are used
amples of eligible measures are: to generate an equitable basis for cost recovery between
customers connecting to the system in the early years
Measures that encourage the use of reclaimed water of a program and those connecting in the later years.
in lieu of drinking water for landscape or crop irriga- The carrying costs (interest expenses) are generally not
tion fully recovered through the impact fee, although annual
increases above a base cost do provide equity between
Measures that encourage the use of moisture sen- groups connecting in the early years and those in later
sors, flow timers, low-volume sprinklers, or drip irri- years.
gation for efficiencies in reclaimed water use
Impact fees for water reuse systems are implemented
Many variations on this incentive theme could be at the discretion of the governing body. However, re-
adopted by states, such as imposing a utility tax directly quiring a fee to be paid upon applying for service prior
on large water users and granting exemptions for re- to construction can provide a strong indication of public
claimed water use. willingness to participate in the reuse program. Incen-
tive programs can be implemented in conjunction with
6.3.5 Special Assessments or Special Tax impact fees by waiving the fee for those users who make
Districts an early commitment to connect to the reclaimed water
system (e.g., for the first 90 days after construction
When a reuse program is designed to be a self-sup- completion) and collecting the fee from later connec-
porting enterprise system, independent of both the ex- tions.
isting water and wastewater utility systems, it may be
appropriate to develop a special tax or assessment dis- 6.4 Incremental Versus Proportionate
trict to recover capital costs directly from the benefited Share Costs
properties. The advantage of this cost recovery mecha-
nism is that it can be tailored to collect the costs appro- 6.4.1 Incremental Cost Basis
priate to the benefits received. The City of Cape Coral,
Florida, is one example of an area using special as- The incremental cost basis allocates only the marginal
sessments to fund dual-water piping capital costs for fire costs of providing service to the customer. This system
protection and irrigation water. This special assessment can be used if the community feels that the marginal
was levied at an approximate cost of $1,600 per single- reclaimed water user is performing a social good by con-
family residence with financing over 8 years at 8 percent serving potable water, and should be allocated only the
annual interest. In addition, a monthly user charge is also additional increment of cost of the service. However, if
applied to the water and wastewater billing to assist in the total cost savings realized by reuse are being en-
defraying operating costs. joyed only by the marginal user, then in effect, the rest of
the community is subsidizing the service. For example,
206
an ocean outfall used as the primary means of effluent claimed water service. This could occur, for example, if
disposal could be tapped and reclaimed water mains ex- treatment for nutrient removal had been required for a
tended to provide irrigation to one or more developments surface water discharge but would not be necessary for
in an area that formerly used potable water. In this ex- agricultural reuse.
ample, it may be appropriate to charge the developments
only for the cost of installing the additional mains plus As previously noted, because reclaimed water is a dif-
any additional treatment that might be required. ferent product from potable water and has restrictions on
its use, it may be considered a separate, lower valued
6.4.2 Proportionate Share Cost Basis class of water and priced below potable water. Thus, it
may be important that the user charges for reuse be be-
Under the commonly used proportionate share basis, the low, or at least competitive with, those for potable water
total costs of the facilities are shared by the parties in service. However, often the current costs of construct-
proportion to their usage. In apportioning the costs, con- ing reuse facilities cannot compete with the historical
sideration must be given to the quantity and quality of the costs of an existing potable water system. One means
water, the reserve capacity that must be maintained, and of creating a more equitable basis for comparison is to
the use of any joint facilities, particularly means of con- associate new costs of potable water supplies to the
veyance. In determining the eventual cost of reuse to the current costs of potable water, as well as any more costly
customer base, the apportionment of costs among waste- treatment methods or changes in water treatment require-
water users, potable water users, and reclaimed water ments that may be required to meet current regulations.
users must be examined. The allocation of costs among When creating reuse user fees, it may be desirable to
users also must consider the willingness of the local com- deduct incremental potable water costs from those
munity to subsidize a reuse program. charged for reuse because reuse is allowing the deferral
or elimination of developing new potable water supplies
A proportional allocation of costs can be reflected in the or treatment facilities. The perceived inequalities between
following equations: reclaimed water and potable water may be eliminated
where potable water is in short supply and subject to
Total wastewater service = wastewater treatment seasonal (or permanent) restrictions. For customers that
to permitted disposal cannot tolerate uncertainty in deliveries, a source of re-
standards + effluent claimed water free from restrictions might be worth more
disposal + transmis- than traditional supplies.
sion + collection
To promote certain objectives, local communities may
Total potable water service = water treatment + wa- want to alter the manner of cost distribution. For ex-
ter supply + transmis- ample, to encourage reuse for pollution abatement pur-
sion + distribution poses by eliminating a surface water discharge, the
capital costs of all wastewater treatment, reclaimed
Total reclaimed water service = [reclaimed water treat- water transmission, and reclaimed water distribution can
ment – treatment to be allocated to the wastewater service costs. To pro-
permitted disposal mote water conservation, elements of the incremental
standards] + additional costs of potable water may be subtracted from the re-
transmission + addi- use costs to encourage use of reclaimed water.
tional distribution + ad-
ditional storage For water reuse systems, the proportionate share basis
of allocation may be most appropriate. The allocation
These equations illustrate an example of distributing the should not be especially difficult, because the facilities
full costs of each service to the appropriate system and required to support the reuse system should be readily
users. The first equation distributes only the cost of treat- identifiable. As shown in the previous equations, it is
ing wastewater to currently required disposal standards, appropriate to allocate to wastewater charges the costs
with any additional costs for higher levels of treatment, of all treatment required for compliance with NPDES per-
such as filtration, coagulation, or disinfection, assigned mits. All additional costs, including the costs of recla-
to the cost of reclaimed water service. In the event that mation and conveyance of reclaimed water, would be
the cost of wastewater treatment is lowered by the re- allocated to the water reuse user charge.
use alternative because current effluent disposal stan-
dards are more stringent than those required for the
reuse system, the credit accrues to the total cost of re-
207
General and administrative costs should also be allo- Any costs saved from effluent disposal may be consid-
cated proportionately to all services just as they would ered a credit. Indirect costs include a percentage of ad-
be in a cost-of-service allocation plan for water and waste- ministration, management, and overhead. Another cost
water service. In some cases, lower wastewater treat- is replacement reserve, i.e., the reserve fund to pay for
ment costs may result from initiating reclaimed water system replacement in the future. In many instances,
usage. Therefore, the result may be a reduction in the monies generated to meet debt service coverage re-
wastewater user charge. In this case, depending on lo- quirements are deposited into replacement reserves.
cal circumstances, the savings could be allocated to ei-
ther the wastewater customer or the reclaimed water cus- 6.5 Phasing and Participation
tomer, or both. Incentives
Table 6-1 provides a range of credits that can be applied The financing program can be structured to construct
to the financial analysis of water reclamation projects the water reuse facilities in phases, with a target per-
based on experience in California (Sheikh et al., 1998). centage of the potential customers committed to using
reclaimed water prior to implementation of each phase.
With more than one category or type of reclaimed water This commitment assures the municipal utility decision
user, different qualities of reclaimed water may be makers that the project is indeed desired and ensures
needed. If so, the user charge becomes somewhat more the financial stability to begin implementation. Incentives,
complicated to calculate, but it is really no different than such as a reduction or waiver of the assessment or con-
calculating the charges for treating different qualities of nection fee for those connections to the system within a
wastewater for discharge. If, for example, reclaimed set time frame, can be used to promote early connec-
water is distributed for 2 different irrigation needs with tions or participation. The San Antonio, Texas, reclaimed
one requiring higher quality water than the other, then water system charges for reclaimed water will be $280/
the user fee calculation can be based on the cost of acre-foot ($0.86/1,000 gallons), the same as the cost of
treatment to reach the quality required. This assumes potable water. As an incentive for users to sign up for
that it is cost-effective to provide separate delivery sys- this service, the city offered a one-time $900/acre-foot
tems to customers requiring different water quality. ($2.76/1,000 gallons) credit to cover the user’s costs of
Clearly this will not always be the case, and a cost/ben- converting to reclaimed water (Martinez, 2000).
efit analysis of treating the entire reclaimed water stream
to the highest level required must be compared to the Adequate participation to support implementation can be
cost of separate transmission systems. Consideration determined by conducting an initial survey in a service
should also be given to providing a lower level of treat- area, followed by a formal voted service agreement for
ment to a single reclaimed water transmission system each neighborhood. If the required percentage of resi-
with additional treatment provided at the point of use as dents in a given neighborhood agree to participate, facili-
required by the customer. ties will be constructed in that area. Once this type of
measure is taken, there is an underlying basis for either
Estimating the operating cost of a reclaimed water sys- assessing pipeline costs, or charging using a monthly
tem involves determining those treatment and distribu- fixed fee, because the ability to serve exists. The rate
tion components that are directly attributable to the re- policy may also include a provision for assessments or
claimed water system. Direct operating costs involve ad- charges for undeveloped properties within a neighbor-
ditional treatment facilities, distribution, additional water hood served by a reclaimed water system.
quality monitoring, and inspection and monitoring staff.
Table 6-1. Credits to Reclaimed Water Costs
Benefit Applicability Value ($/acre-feet)

Water supply Very common $300 - $1,100
Water supply reliability Very common $100 - $140
Effluent disposal Very common $200 - $2,000
Downstream watershed Common $400 - $800
Energy conservation Situational 0 to $240
208
6.6 Sample Rates and Fees Figure 6-1 provides the results of a similar survey of
potable and reclaimed water rates for utilities in south-
6.6.1 Connection Fees west Florida (Personal Communication with Dennis
Cafaro, 2003). With the exception of Barron Collier utili-
Connection charges to a dual distribution system are of- ties, reclaimed water rates tend to be less than 50 per-
ten based on the size of the reclaimed water system cent of the potable water rates, with some rates for re-
being served. For example, in Cocoa Beach, Florida, use less than 20 percent that of potable water. These
customers are charged a connection fee based on the results provide additional evidence that reclaimed water
size of the reclaimed water service line. The connection rates are highly dependent on local conditions.
fees are $100, $180, and $360 for a 3/4-inch, 1-inch,
and 1-1/2-inch service line, respectively. To further reinforce the concept that reclaimed water is a
valuable resource, utilities may consider not only charg-
As an alternative to connection fees, a flat monthly rate ing for reclaimed water by the gallon, but also implement-
can be charged to each user for a specified length of ing a conservation rate structure to encourage efficient
time until the capital costs associated with the system use. Conservation rate structures provide economic in-
are paid off. This alternative is often preferred to spread centives for consumers to limit water use. To the extent
out the costs associated with connection fees. possible, they should achieve similar results in all cus-
tomer classes, be equitable within and among customer
6.6.2 User Fees classes, support the utility’s financial requirements, and
can be revenue neutral. Structures can significantly re-
The procedure for establishing rates for reclaimed wa- duce water use without government expenditure or new
ter can be similar to the procedure for establishing po- regulation, while helping to protect both the quantity and
table water and wastewater rates. If reclaimed water is quality of water resources. For example, at system start-
metered, then user rates can be based upon the amount up some residential customers in the City of Venice,
of reclaimed water used. This will tend to temper ex- Florida were charged a flat rate for reclaimed water ser-
cessive use. If meters are not used, then a flat rate can vice. When the rate structure was changed to charge
be charged. Table 6-2 presents user fees for a number customers for the actual volume of water used, including
of existing urban reuse systems. an inclining conservation rate, demand was reduced by
10 to 15 percent. However, no change in the peak de-
It is common for the cost of reclaimed water service to mand water use was observed – suggesting peak use
be based on a percentage of the cost of potable water was driven by actual need and reductions were the result
service. One might assume that reclaimed water rates of more efficient water use in low demand periods
would always be less than that of potable water but this (Farabee et al., 2002).
may not be the case. A recent survey of reclaimed wa-
ter utilities in California (Table 6-3) shows the range of 6.7 Case Studies
discounts for reclaimed water (Lindow and Newby, 1998).
This survey clearly shows that reclaimed water can com- 6.7.1 Unique Funding Aspects of the Town
mand rates equal to that of potable water depending on of Longboat Key, Florida Reclaimed
the specific nature of local water resources. Water System
Longboat Key is a barrier island community located on

Table 6-3. Discounts for Reclaimed Water Florida’s Gulf coast. The town lies within 2 counties—the
Use in California northern portion of Longboat Key is in Manatee County and
the southern portion is in Sarasota County. The island is
Cost Percentage of surrounded by the Gulf of Mexico on the west and Sarasota
Jurisdiction Bay on the east. The town’s geographical location severely
Potable W ater (%)
City of Long Beach 53 limits local water resources. Since its inception in 1972, the
Marin Municipal Water District 56 Town of Longboat Key has received potable water and waste-
City of Milpitas 80 water services from Manatee County.
Orange County Water District 80
San Jose Water Company 85 Landscape irrigation accounts for approximately a quar-
Irvine Ranch Water District 90 ter of the town’s potable water use. In 2002, it was nec-
Carlsbad Municipal Water District 100 essary for the town to seek an alternative water source
East Bay Municipal Utility District 100 for irrigation since its current potable water use exceeded
Otay Water District 100
what is available through Manatee County agreement al-
209
Table 6-2. User Fees for Existing Urban Reuse Systems
Location User Fee
1
Amarillo, Texas $0.15/1,000 gallons
Residential (not metered):

1 ▪ $8/month/acre
Cocoa Beach, Florida
Commercial (metered):
▪ $0.26/1,000 gallons
1
Colorado Springs, Colorado $0.00685/cubic foot ($0.91/1,000 gallons)
Major agriculture:
▪ $0.10/1,000 gallons
1 Agriculture, golf course:
County of Maui, Hawaii
▪ $0.20/1,00 gallons
Other:
▪ $0.55/1,000 gallons
1
Henderson, Nevada $0.71/1,000 gallons
Tier 1: $2.02/CCF for 0-100% of water budget
1
San Rafael, California Tier 2: $3.89/CCF for 100-150% of water budget
Tier 3: $7.64/CCF for over 150% of water budget
Inside service area:
▪ $280/AF ($0.86/1,000 gallons) for 0-25 AF/month
1 ▪ $260/AF ($0.80/1,000 gallons) for 25-50 AF/month
South Bay, California
▪ $200/AF ($0.61/1,000 gallons) for 200+ AF/month
Residential (not metered):

St. Petersburg, Florida
1
▪ $10.36/month for first acre +
$5.92/month for each additional acre
Wheaton, Illinois1 $0.18/1,000 gallons
Residential - Flat Rate ($/month)

▪ Average = $13.81
▪ Range = $0.00 - $350.003
Residential - Gallonage Charge ($/1,000 gallons)

▪ Average = $0.32
▪ Range = $0.00 - $1.25
2
Summary of Florida Reuse Systems
Non-Residential - Flat Rate ($/month)
▪ Average = $445.35
▪ Range = $0.00 - $12,595.00
Non-Residential Gallonage Charge ($/1,000 gallons)

▪ Average = $0.26
▪ Range = $0.00 - $2.50
1
User fees as reported in management practices for nonpotable water reuse, Project 97-
IRM-6, Water Environment Research Foundation, 2001.
2
Reuse Rates as reported in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
Reuse Inventory Report, June 2002.
3
Includes lump sum rates charged to residential developments as well as individual
residential customers.
210
Figure 6-1. Comparison of Reclaimed Water and Potable Water Rates in Southwest Florida
locations. Historically, the town has also used ground- The Longboat Key reclaimed water transmission system
water to meet approximately 80 percent of its irrigation will connect to the City of Sarasota’s existing reclaimed
demands. However, a decline in groundwater quality atwater system. Two and a half million gallons per day of
tributed to saltwater intrusion caused by long-term with- reclaimed water will be available from the City of Sarasota.
drawals and probable overpumping has been observed. The conceptual planning cost for the project is estimated
to be $28,166,000.
After the review and evaluation of many alternatives, the
Town of Longboat Key opted for a reclaimed water sys- The reclaimed water rate structure has been designed
tem with supply provided by an adjoining jurisdiction, the so the system can be financially self-sufficient. The end
City of Sarasota, Florida. The project will require: user costs are the true cost of providing the service.
The estimated cost per 1,000 gallons will be approxi-
Installation of a subaqueous reclaimed water trans- mately $2.67. By obtaining funding through the SRF loan
mission main across Sarasota Bay program, the town will be able to satisfy the capital re-
quirements for system implementation. Since loan re-
Construction of aquifer storage and recovery facili- payments are not required to begin until 1 year after
ties completion of the facility, semi-annual debt service pay-
ments and OM&R costs will be satisfied from the operat-
Construction of delivery pumping stations ing revenues of the reclaimed water system.
Construction of a 2.5-million-gallon (9,460-m3) stor- Water and wastewater revenues are not intended to be
age tank used to pay for the reclaimed water system, but instead
will serve as a backup pledge to the pledge of reclaimed
Construction of associated distribution mains water revenues for the SRF loan. To the extent that wa-
ter and wastewater revenues are used to make any
semi-annual loan payments, the town intends to reim-
211
burse its water and wastewater revenues fund with re- salination Research and Innovation Partnership
claimed water revenues. (DRIP), Water Environmental Research Foundation
(WERF), Proposition 13, etc.
The reclaimed water revenue source is contingent on com-
mitments in the form of user agreements from condo- RWDF provides Authority member agencies finan-
minium and homeowner’s associations. The public has cial assistance up to $100 per acre-foot ($0.31 per
voted for a town-required referendum authorizing the fi- 1,000 gallons) for the development of reclaimed wa-
nancing of a reclaimed water system. ter projects capable of relieving a demand on the
Authority. Project expenses must exceed project rev-
6.7.2 Financial Assistance in San Diego enues. Funding is available for up to 25 years based
County, California on financial need.
Water reclamation is an important component of the San LRP is designed to ensure the financial feasibility of
Diego region’s local water resources. A number of agen- local projects during the initial years of operation.
cies in San Diego continue to implement and expand The Metropolitan Water District of Southern Califor-
their water reuse projects. Currently, about 12,000 acre- nia offers an incentive of up to $250 per acre-foot
feet (3.9 billion gallons) per year of reclaimed water is ($0.77 per 1,000 gallons) for up to 25 years for re-
beneficially reused within the service area of Water claimed water and groundwater development projects
Authoriy Board of the County of San Diego (Authority). that offset demands for imported water.
Approximately 64 percent of the water is used for agri-
culture, landscape irrigation, and other municipal and in- 6.7.3 Grant Funding Through the South-
dustrial uses; the remaining 36 percent is recharged into west Florida Water Management
groundwater basins. This number is projected to increase District
to over 53,000 acre-feet per year (17.3 billion gallons per
year) by 2020. The Southwest Florida Water Management District
(SWFWMD) is 1 of 5 water management districts in Florida
Financial assistance programs play a critical role in the with responsibilities for: water quality, natural systems
development of reclaimed water supplies. There are a improvement, flood protection, and water supply in a
number of financial assistance programs available to 10,000-square-mile (25,900-km2) area. The SWFWMD is
San Diego County agencies: the Authority’s Financial unique among the water management districts in Florida
Assistance Program (FAP) and Reclaimed Water De- in that, beyond the similar structure of the governing
velopment Fund (RWDF); the Metropolitan Water Dis- boards, it has 9 basins with jurisdictional boundaries en-
trict of Southern California’s Local Resources Program compassing the major watersheds making up the Dis-
(LRP); the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Title XVI Grant trict. In 8 of the 9 basins, populations have increased
Program; and the State Water Resources Control such that boards have been appointed to react to local,
Board’s low-interest loan programs. Together, these sub-regional water resource issues. These boards spon-
programs offer funding assistance for all project phases, sor projects in coordination with local governments, pri-
from initial planning and design to construction and op- vate citizens, and private businesses, to improve, pro-
eration. Examples of how these funds facilitate water tect, and restore the water resources of their respective
reuse projects in San Diego are described below: areas. These basin boards, like the Governing Board,
have the authority to levy ad valorem taxes up to 0.5 of a
FAP provides loans to Authority member agencies mil within their boundaries.
for water reuse facilities planning, feasibility investi-
gations, preliminary engineering studies, and research The SWFWMD basin boards have provided local funds
projects related to water reuse and/or groundwater for local water resource-related projects since the
development. The Authority provides funding on a District’s creation in 1961. Originally, the focus of the
50:50 cost sharing basis up to $50,000 for any given basin boards and the Governing Board was on funding
project activity. flood control projects. In the late 1980s, the basin priori-
ties began to shift to the identification and funding of
FAP funds are also available for research and devel- projects that focus on water conservation and the de-
opment in the form of grants. In order to receive FAP velopment of alternative water sources.
funding for these types of studies, a local agency
must have secured partial funding from at least one Recognizing the importance of their ability to support lo-
other source such as the American Water Works cal governments by providing solutions to the growing
Association Research Foundation (AWWARF), De- issues surrounding water supply, the basins adopted a
212
more proactive role in addressing local non-regulatory The cost of Phase IA is estimated at approximately $52
water issues. The Cooperative Funding Initiative, New million. Up to 25 percent of this cost is being funded by
Water Sources Initiative, and Water Supply and Resource the federal government through the Federal Reclama-
Development funding was established in recognition of tion Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992.
the growing need for a structured approach to projects in Up to 50 percent of the total cost is being funded by the
order to maximize the SWFWMD’s effectiveness in State of California through the Environmental Water Act
choosing and funding water resource projects and bud- of 1989. The remaining 25 percent of the total cost is
geting for their completion. being funded by ratepayers through special conserva-
tion and reclamation rate adjustments. Table 6-4 pro-
The SWFWMD funds up to 50 percent of a project’s capital vides calculations, in cost per acre-foot, for reclaimed
cost and over the past 15 years has budgeted more than water with and without federal and state requirements.
$182,000,000 in financial contributions towards reclaimed
water development. As a result of Governing Board and Based on these funding reimbursement percentages,
basin board participation, more than 214 reuse projects Phase IA of the EVWRP will provide water at an esti-
totaling $494,000,000 in capital costs have been funded mated cost of $478 per acre-foot ($1.47 per 1,000 gal-
since Fiscal Year 1987. lons), with a net cost of approximately $194 per acre-
foot ($0.60 per 1,000 gallons) when state and federal fund-
Source: SWFWMD, 2003. ing is considered. Even if state or federal funding had
not been available, the EVWRP would still provide a new
6.7.4 Use of Reclaimed Water to Augment reliable source of water at a cost comparable to other
Potable Supplies: An Economic water supplies, and significantly less expensive than other
Perspective (California) new supply options. (According to the City Of Los Ange-
les Department of Water and Power Urban Water Man-
To accurately assess the cost-effectiveness of any re- agement Plan Fiscal Year 1997-1998 Annual Update, sea-
use project, including an indirect potable water reuse water might be desalinated using new technology, which
project, all potential benefits of the project must be con- has produced desalted ocean water at a cost of about
sidered. The beneficial effects of an indirect potable re- $800 per acre-foot ($2.35 per 1,000 gallons) in pilot tests,
use project often extend beyond the sponsoring agency, or approximately $2,000 per acre-foot ($6.14 per 1,000
providing regional benefits and, in many cases, ben- gallons) using current technology.) Furthermore, the
efits that extend statewide and beyond. In certain set- EVWRP has other benefits, which have not been quanti-
tings, indirect potable reuse projects may provide for fied, such as the reduction of water imported from the
large-scale beneficial use of reclaimed water with rela- Mono Basin and improved water system reliability result-
tively modest additional infrastructure requirements. ing from a new local supply of water.
Examples of 2 such indirect potable reuse projects are
underway in California: the East Valley Water Recycling Orange County Groundwater Replenishment (GWR)
Project (EVWRP), and the Orange County Groundwater System
Replenishment (GWR) System.
Under the Orange County GWR System, highly treated
East Valley Water Recycling Project reclaimed water will be pumped to either existing spread-
ing basins, where it will percolate into and replenish the
Phase IA of the EVWRP includes approximately 10 miles groundwater supply, or to a series of injection wells that
(16 km) of 54-inch (137-cm) diameter pipeline and a pump- act as a seawater intrusion control barrier. The GWR
ing station to deliver tertiary treated reclaimed water from System will be implemented in 3 phases, providing a
the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant to the peak daily production capacity of 78,400 acre-feet per
Hansen Spreading Grounds. Phase IA also includes an year (70 mgd) by the year 2007, 112,000 acre-feet per
extensive monitoring well network designed to track the year (100 mgd) by 2013, and 145,600 acre-feet per year
reclaimed water as it travels through the San Fernando (130 mgd) by 2020.
Groundwater Basin from the spreading grounds to do-
mestic production wells. This project will initially deliver Table 6-5 shows a conservative preliminary estimate of
up to 10,000 acre-feet per year (6,200 gpm) to the Hansen the capital and OM&R costs for Phase I of the GWR
Spreading Grounds. Phase IB of the EVWRP will include System based on December 2003 estimates.
construction of an additional pipeline to deliver reclaimed
water to the Pacoima Spreading Grounds. The expected project benefits and their economic val-
ues (avoided costs) include:
213
Table 6-4. Estimated Capital and Maintenance Costs for Phase IVA With and Without Federal and
State Reimbursements
Without Federal and State With 25% Federal and 50% State
Reimbursement Reimbursement
Capital Costs $52,000,000 $52,000,000
State Reimbursement (50%) -0- $26,000,000
Federal Reimbursement (25%) -0- $13,000,000
Net DWP Capital Expenditure $52,000,000 $13,000,000
Amortized Net Capital Expenditure (6% interest for 30 years) $3,777,743 $944,436
Operation & Maintenance Cost per Acre-foot (AF) $100 $100
Annual Delivery 10,000 AF 10,000 AF
$478 per acre-foot $194 per acre-foot
Cost of Delivered Water
($1.47 per 1,000 gal) ($0.60 per 1,000 gal)
1. Alternative Water Supply – If the GWR System is area of the Orange County groundwater basin. The
not implemented, Water Factory 21 would have to
treated wastewater discharges and water from the
be rehabilitated at a construction cost of approxi-
Colorado River are high in TDS, with concentrations
mately $100 million to provide the water needed for
over 700 mg/l. Higher TDS water can cause corro-
seawater intrusion control via groundwater injection.
sion of plumbing fixtures and water heaters. Normal-
Additional imported water at a yearly cost of approxi-
ized costs for more frequent replacement of plumb-
mately $4 million to $10 million would have to be
ing and water using fixtures and appliances are esti-
purchased for use at the spreading basins as recharge
mated to range from $100 to $150 per household
water. In times of drought, there is also a penalty
each year. Over time, the reverse osmosis-treated
imposed on using imported water supplies, ranging
product from the GWR System will lower the overall
from $175 to $250 per acre-foot, potentially adding
TDS content of the groundwater basin, saving the
fees up to $10.7 million a year. By implementing the
average household approximately $12.50 per year
GWR System, approximately $27.4 million in annual
(or $25/acre-foot, $0.08 per 1,000 gallons). Indus-
costs are avoided.
tries and other large water users might also realize
significant savings. From the standpoint of salinity
2. Salinity Management – The OCWD uses water from management, the GWR System provides an annual
the Santa Ana River (consisting of upstream treated benefit of $16.9 million.
wastewater discharges and stormwater) and imported
water (from the Colorado River Aqueduct and the 3. Delay/Avoid Ocean Outfall Construction – Implemen-
State Water Project) to percolate into the forebay tation of the GWR System will divert up to 100 mgd
Table 6-5. Cost Estimate for Phase I of the GWR System
Item Cost
Capital Costs $453.9 Million
Operation & Maintenance $26.7 Million/year
Grant Receipts $89.8 Million
Interest 2.6% amortized over 25 years
Power Cost $0.11per kwh
50% Barrier injection
Capacity Utilization
50% Recharge percolation
214
(4,380 l/s) of peak wastewater flow during Phase I Source: WateReuse Association, 1999. Updated by CDM/
from the Sanitation District’s ocean outfall disposal OCWD Project Team, 2004.
system. The estimated $175 million cost of a new
ocean outfall can be delayed at least 10 years by 6.7.5 Impact Fee Development
applying several peak reduction methods, including Considerations for Reclaimed Water
diverting water to the GWR system instead of dis- Projects: Hillsborough County,
charging to the ocean outfall. Florida
Economic Summary Hillsborough County is located on the central-west coast

of the State of Florida. The unincorporated area encom-
The annual cost to implement the GWR System – in- passes 931 square miles (2,411 km2), or more than 86
cluding capital, OM&R, engineering, administration, and percent of the total county area. Approximately 650,000
contingencies, at 2.6 percent interest and amortized over residents live in unincorporated Hillsborough County, and
a 25-year period – would be approximately $37.1 million. most of them are served by various community services
Totaling the avoided costs, the total annual benefits are provided by the County. The Hillsborough County Wa-
as shown in Table 6-6. ter Department is responsible for providing treatment
and delivery of potable water, wastewater collection, and
This results in a maximum benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.33 treatment and distribution of reclaimed water within un-
($49.2/$37.1). Based on this analysis, Orange County incorporated Hillsborough County. The Department cur-
Water District and Orange County Sanitation District rently saves about 10 mgd (440 l/s) of potable water
have decided to move forward with the implementation through reuse. Future expansion of the reclaimed wa-
of this project. ter system is expected to save about 30 mgd (1,315 l/s)
of potable water by the year 2020.
The EVWRP and the GWR System exemplify how indi-
rect potable reuse projects, when compared to other Florida continues to be a rapidly growing state. To ad-
water supply and wastewater management options, can dress the need for additional infrastructure, local govern-
offer the greatest benefits for the least cost. The ulti- ments have turned to development impact fees. Devel-
mate success of these projects would be attributable to opment impact fees are charges applied to new develop-
project sponsors reaching out and forming alliances with ment to pay for the construction of new facilities or for
the full array of beneficiaries. the expansion of existing ones to meet these demands.
Water and wastewater utilities are no exception. At least
The EVWRP and the GWR System exemplify how indi- half of Florida’s 67 counties use some form of impact
rect potable reuse projects, when compared to other fees to pay for expansion of their water and wastewater
water supply and wastewater management options, can utility that is necessitated by growth in the community.
offer the greatest benefits for the least cost. The ulti-
mate success of these projects would be attributable to The following 3 criteria must be met to justify these fees:
project sponsors reaching out and forming alliances with (1) there must be a reasonable connection between growth
the full array of beneficiaries. from new development and the resultant need for the
Table 6-6. Total Annual Benefits
Total Annual Cost

Item
Avoidance (Millions $)
$27.40
(OWCD) Cost Avoidance
Salinity Management $16.90
Orange County Sanitation District

$4.90
(OCSD), Delay in outfall
Total Benefits $49.20
215
new service; (2) the fees charged cannot exceed a pro- for 24 mgd (1,050 l/s). The difference of 24.5 mgd (1,075
portionate share of the cost incurred in accommodating l/s) is the effluent disposal benefit obtained from re-
the new users paying the fee; and (3) there must be a claimed water. Using a cost of $2.40 per gpd for either
reasonable connection between the expenditure of the land application or deep-well injection methods for alter-
fees that are collected and the benefits received by the nate effluent disposal, this results in an effluent disposal
new customers paying the fees. cost avoided of approximately $58.8 million.
Several years ago, Hillsborough County decided to fund Using these calculations, the total cost avoided for both
a portion of the cost of new reclaimed water projects water and wastewater is $106.58 million. The potable
through the capacity fee mechanism. It was recognized water capacity cost avoided and the effluent disposal
that the service benefits reclaimed water customers as cost avoided were each divided by this total cost to de-
well as new customers to the system that do not neces- termine the allocation of reclaimed water project costs
sarily receive the reclaimed service. Specifically, re- associated with water and wastewater. This resulted in
claimed water projects have the unique characteristic a reclaimed water project cost split of 45 percent to water
of providing capacity in both the water and wastewater and 55 percent to wastewater.
components of a traditional utility.
The current North service area capacity fee is $1,335
The Department’s potable water investment since 1986, for water and $1,815 for wastewater. For the South/Cen-
when the majority of the debt for the existing system tral service area, the current capacity fee is $1,440 for
was issued, is approximately $175 million with a corre- water and $1,970 for wastewater. Table 6-7 provides the
sponding potable water capacity of 54.5 mgd (2,400 l/ percentage of the capacity fees that have been attrib-
s). The level of service prior to potable water conserva- uted to reclaimed water projects in these service areas.
tion benefits derived from using reclaimed water was
approximately 350 gpd (1,325 l/d) per Equivalent Resi- 6.7.6 How Much Does it Cost and Who
dential Connection (ERC). Based on this level of ser- Pays: A Look at Florida’s Reclaimed
vice, the 54.5 mgd (2,400 l/s) potable water capacity would Water Rates
serve 155,714 ERCs. However, since reclaimed water
service has been implemented, the Department has been Reclaimed water is becoming an increasingly valuable
able to reduce the level of service to 300 gpd (1,135 l/d) water resource in Florida in terms of groundwater re-
per ERC. The same 54.5 mgd (2,400 l/s) of capacity is charge, conservation of potable quality water, and drink-
now able to serve 181,667 ERCs with no additional in- ing water cost savings to the consumer (since reclaimed
vestment in potable water capacity. This equates to water is usually less expensive than drinking water to
25,953 additional ERCs being served due to reclaimed the consumer). In fact, reuse has become so popular
water use – or a potable water capacity avoidance at the that some utilities have had trouble keeping up with the
350-gpd (1,325 l/d) level of service of 9.1 mgd (400 l/s). demand.
Assuming a cost of $5.25 per gpd for additional potable
water capacity based on desalination treatment, the po- In order to meet the high demand for reclaimed water,
table water capacity cost avoided is approximately $47.78 some utilities have used other sources (i.e., groundwa-
million. ter, surface water, etc.) to augment their reclaimed water
supply. Others deal with high reclaimed water demand
The Department has 8 wastewater treatment plants with by imposing watering restrictions on reuse customers,
a total permitted treatment capacity of 48.5 mgd (2,125 and/or limiting or prohibiting new customer connections
l/s). These treatment plants have permitted effluent dis- to the reuse system. Many reclaimed water suppliers
posal capacity in the form of a surface-water discharge used these methods to try to meet demands when the
Table 6-7. Reclaimed Water Impact Fees
Percent of Water Capacity Fee Percent of Wastewater Fee

Service Area
Allocated to Reclaimed Water Allocated to Reclaimed Water
North 8 29
South/Central 6 18
216
state was faced with a drought, but a few suppliers still did not provide residential service.) The average rates
struggled. The need to conserve and properly manage associated with each rate type are shown in Table 6-8.
reclaimed water as a valuable resource became very clear.
According to an AWWA survey, reuse rates are devel-
In the past, many utilities provided reclaimed water at no oped in many different ways. Out of 99 facilities sur-
cost to the customer or based on a fixed monthly charge, veyed, 19 percent set the rate at a percentage of the
regardless of use. Since the water was free or sold at potable water rate, 14 percent base the rate on the esti-
low flat rates, customers used as much as they wanted, mated cost of the reuse service, 24 percent set the rate
which was usually more than they needed. Now, many to promote use, 9 percent base the rate on market analy-
utilities are moving towards volume-based charges for sis, and 33 percent use other methods to develop reuse
reclaimed water service. Although the main intent of rates. The survey also revealed what percentages of
charging reuse customers for reclaimed water is to re- costs were recovered through reuse rates for these fa-
cover the costs associated with reuse facilities, reuse cilities as shown in Table 6-9.
customers that are charged by the gallon for reclaimed
water service tend to be more conservative in their use Fifty-three percent of 97 facilities surveyed charge a uni-
of the water supply. form rate for reclaimed water, approximately 6 percent
charge inclining block rates, 2 percent charge declining
1999 Florida Reclaimed Water Rates block rates, and 6 percent charge seasonal rates. The
other 33 percent used some other type of rate structure
Every year, the Florida Department of Environmental Pro- (AWWA, 2000). The survey shows that the majority of
tection publishes the Reuse Inventory that contains a reuse customers are metered. The average metered rate
good deal of useful information regarding water reclama- of 16 surveyed facilities was $1.12/1,000 gallons.
tion facilities in Florida, including reuse rates charged by
facilities. The 1999 Reuse Inventory (FDEP, 2000) com- In order to determine the relationship between how much
piles rates under 2 categories, Residential and Non-Resi- reclaimed water a reuse customer used and how much
dential. A survey based on information from the 1999 they were charged for the service, the Southwest Florida
Reuse Inventory for 176 reuse systems revealed the fol- Water Management District (SWFWMD) conducted a
lowing: survey of utilities in Pinellas County that provided re-
claimed water to residential customers. This survey re-
Non-Residential Category: Forty-five percent of the revealed that residential customers who were charged a
use systems provided reclaimed water free of charge, flat rate used an average of 1,112 gallons of reclaimed
33 percent charged by the gallon, about 10 percent water per day, while residential customers who were
charged a flat rate, and 12 percent incorporated the base charged per 1,000 gallons only used an average of 579
facility charge and the gallonage charge. gallons per day (Andrade, 2000). The average metered
rate charged by these utilities was $0.61/1000 gallons.
Residential Category: Eight percent of the systems The average flat rate charged by these utilities was $9.77/
surveyed provided reclaimed water free of charge, 12 month. Based on the average usage of 1,112 gallons per
percent by the gallon, 22 percent charged a flat rate, and day reported for residential customers, this flat rate trans-
about 10 percent utilized the base facility charge and the lates to a metered rate of $0.29/1000 gallons.
gallonage charge. (48 percent of the systems surveyed
Source: Coleman and Andrade, 2001
Table 6-8. Average Rates for Reclaimed Water Service in Florida
Non-Residential Residential
Flat Rate 1* $19.39/month $6.85/month
Flat Rate 2** $892,89/month Not Applicable
Metered Rate $0.26/1,000 gallons $0.39/1,000 gallons

Flat Rate with Metered
$29.99/month+$0.39/1,000 gallons $7.05/month+$0.34/1,000 gallons
Rate
217
Table 6-9. Percent Costs Recovered Through Reuse Rates
Percent of Utilities
Percent of Costs Recovered
Recovering Costs
Under 25 Percent 32
25 to 50 Percent 5
51 to 75 Percent 5
76 to 99 Percent 14
100 Percent 13
Unknown 31
6.7.7 Rate Setting for Industrial Reuse in American National Power approached the City of San
San Marcos, Texas Marcos, as well as other cities in the Central Texas area
between Austin and San Antonio, with a list of resources
The newly expanded San Marcos 9-mgd (395-l/s) ad- required for the power co-generation facility they were to
vanced tertiary wastewater treatment plant is a state-of- build – The Hays Energy Project (HEP) – in anticipation
the-art facility that produces some of the highest quality of the imminent electrical power deregulation in Texas.
effluent in the State of Texas. The permit requirements Principal on the list was a reliable, economical source of
are the toughest the Texas Natural Resources Conser- both potable and process water, and a means of dispos-
vation Commission deploys: 5/5/2/1/6 (BOD5/TSS/NH3/ ing of their domestic wastewater and process wastewa-
PO4/DO). Since coming on-line last year, the quality of ter. The City had no existing wastewater treatment plant
the effluent has consistently been better than the permit effluent customers and no historical basis for setting a
limits require. In this region of the state, the use of ground- rate to charge the HEP for delivering to them basically
water is discouraged and surface water is becoming less the City’s entire effluent flow.
available and more costly; therefore, reclaimed water is
becoming a marketable commodity. In January 1999,
Figure 6-2. Comparison of Rate Basis for

San Marcos Reuse Water
218
In considering rates to this industrial customer, the City 76th Annual Florida Water Resources Conference, Jack-
of San Marcos investigated both the actual cost of pro- sonville, Florida.
ducing and delivering reclaimed water as well as the
market value of reclaimed water. By including only those Collins, J.M. 2000. “The Price of Reclaimed Water in
facilities over and above what was required for normal Reno, Nevada,” 2000 Water Reuse Conference Proceed-
wastewater treatment and disposal, the actual cost of ings, San Antonio, Texas.
delivering reclaimed water was determined to be be-
tween $0.25 to $0.54/1,000 gallons. A review of the ex- Farabee, D.L., P.S. Wilson, J. Saputo. 2002. “How Vol-
isting costs of alternate suppliers of water in the region ume Pricing Affects Residential Reuse Demands,”
was then conducted to define the market value of re- WEFTEC 2002, Proceedings of the 75th Annual Confer-
claimed water to the industrial customers. This investi- ence and Exposition, Chicago, Illinois.
gation included reuse rates charged elsewhere in the
state and determined that the cost of alternate water Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
supplies might range from $0.40 to $0.90/1,000 gallons. 2002.2001 Reuse Inventory, Tallahassee, Florida.
The results of this investigation are summarized in Fig-
ure 6-2. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 1999
Reuse Inventory. Tallahassee, Florida: Florida Department
Based on the results of this investigation, the City was of Environmental Protection. 2000.
able to consider reclaimed water as a commodity and
set the charges as a function of available supplies, the Gray, B. P., M. Craig, B.E. Hemken. 1996 “Integrated
demand for water and the benefits of the service. Water Resources Planning for Scottsdale, Arizona,”
Through this process, the City established a charge of Water Reuse Conference Proceedings, American Wa-
$0.69/1,000 gallon as shown in Figure 6-2. ter Works Association, Denver, Colorado.
Source: Longoria et al., 2000. Gorrie, J.M., V.P. Going, M.P. Smith and J. Jeffers. 2003.
“Impact Fee Development Considerations for Reclaimed
6.8 References Water Projects,” 2003 FWRC Proceedings, Tampa,
Florida.
Andrade, Anthony. 2000. “Average Reclaimed Water
Flows for Residential Customers in Pinellas County.” Lindow, D., J. Newby. 1998. “Customized Cost-Benefit
Brooksville, FL: Southwest Florida Water Management Analysis for Recycled Water Customers,” Water Reuse
District. Conference Proceedings, American Water Works As-
sociation, Denver, Colorado.
American Water Works Association. 2000. “AWWA/WEF
Water Reuse Rates and Charges Survey Report.” Ameri- Longoria, R.R., D.W. Sloan, S.M. Jenkins. 2000. “Rate
can Water Works Association. Setting for Industrial Reuse in San Marcos, Texas,” 2000
Water Reuse Conference Proceedings, San Antonio,
Personal Communication with Dennis Cafaro, 2003. Texas.
California State Water Resources Control Board. 1991. Martinez, P.R. 2000. “San Antonio Water System Re-
Water Recycling 2000: California’s Plan for the Future. cycled Water Program: An Alternative Water Supply –
Office of Water Recycling, Sacramento, California. Short Term Management Resources,” 2000 Water Re-
use Conference Proceedings, San Antonio, Texas.
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. and Orange County Water
District, 2004. Project team consists of Richard Corneille, Sheikh, B., E. Rosenblum, S. Kosower, E. Hartling.1998.
Robert Chalmers, and Mike Marcus. “Accounting for the Benefit of Water Reuse,” Water Re-
use Conference Proceedings, American Water Works
City Of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Association, Denver, Colorado.
Urban Water Management Plan Fiscal Year 1997-1998
Annual Update – page 19. Southwest Florida Water Management District. Annual
Alternative Water Supply Report FY 2003. Southwest
Coleman, L.W., A. Andrade. 2001. “How Much Does it Florida Water Management District, 2003, Brooksville,
Cost and Who Pays: A Look at Florida’s Reclaimed Wa- Florida.
ter Rates,” Technical Program and Proceedings of the
219
Washington State Department of Ecology. Focus Sheets.

August 2001.
Water Environment Research Foundation. 2001. Manage-

ment Practices for Nonpotable Water Reuse. Project 97-
IRM-6. Alexandria, Virginia.
WateReuse Association. 1999. “Use of Recycled Water

to Augment Potable Supplies: An Economic Perspec-
tive.” http://www.watereuse.org/Pages/information.html
220
CHAPTER 7
Public Involvement Programs
In the years since this manual was first developed, the In general, effective public participation programs invite
world has seen ever-increasing demands for water, of- two-way communication, provide education, and ask for
ten from competing interests, and often in the face of meaningful input as the reuse program is developed and
declining water supplies. As a result, water quality and refined. Depending on the project, public involvement
quantity have become important public topics in many can involve limited contact with a number of specific
arenas, and regulatory agencies often require some level users, or can be expanded to include the formation of a
of stakeholder involvement in water management deci- formal advisory committee or task force. Often, public
sions. This is strikingly different from the past when information efforts begin by targeting the most impacted
members of the public were often informed about stakeholders. Over time, as an early education base is
projects only after final decisions had been made. To- built among stakeholders, the education effort then
day, responsible leaders recognize the need to incor- broadens to include the public at large. Regardless of
porate public values with science, technology, and legal the audience, all public involvement efforts are geared
aspects to create real, workable solutions tailored to to help ensure that adoption of a selected water reuse
meet specific needs. program will fulfill real user needs and generally recog-
nized community goals including public health, safety,
In the area of water reuse, the opportunities for meaning- and program cost.
ful public involvement are many. This chapter provides
an overview of the key elements of public planning, as The term, “two-way communications flow” cannot be too
well as several case studies illustrating public involve- highly emphasized. In addition to building community
ment and/or participation approaches. support for a reuse program, public participation can
also provide valuable community-specific information to
7.1 Why Public Participation? the reuse planners. Citizens have legitimate concerns,
quite often reflecting their knowledge of detailed techni-
Public involvement or participation programs work to iden- cal information. In reuse planning, especially, where one
tify key audiences and specific community issues at a sector of “the public” comprises potential users of re-
very early stage, offering information and opportunities claimed water, this point is critical. Potential users gen-
for input in a clear, understandable way. Effective public erally know what flow and quality of reclaimed water
involvement begins at the earliest planning stage and are acceptable for their applications.
lasts through implementation and beyond.
7.1.1 Informed Constituency
Public participation begins with having a clear understand-
ing of the water reuse options available to the commu- By taking time during the planning stages to meet with
nity. Once an understanding of possible alternatives is citizens, communities will have a much greater oppor-
developed, a list of stakeholders, including possible us- tunity to develop a successful reuse program. Many citi-
ers, can be identified and early public contacts may be- zens may have a pre-conceived notion about reclaimed
gin. Why begin contacting stakeholders before a plan is water and its benefits. It is important to identify each
in place? These citizen stakeholders can provide early stakeholder’s issues and to address questions and con-
indications regarding which reuse program will be best cerns in a clear, matter-of-fact way. This two-way dia-
accepted on a community-wide level. Beyond that, in- logue will lead to informed input regarding reuse alter-
formed citizens can help identify and resolve potential natives.
problems before they occur and develop alternatives
that may work more effectively for the community.
221
A public participation program can build, over time, an lics” with differing interests, motivations, and approaches
informed constituency that is comfortable with the con- to policy issues. For example, in discussing public par-
cept of reuse, knowledgeable about the issues involved ticipation for wastewater facilities and reuse planning
in reclamation/reuse, and supportive of program imple- the following publics may be identified: general public,
mentation. Ideally, citizens who have taken part in the potential users, environmental groups, special interest
planning process will be effective proponents of the se- groups, home owners associations, regulators and/or
lected plans. Having educated themselves on the is- regulating agencies, educational institutions, political
sues involved in adopting reclamation and reuse, they leaders, and business/academic/community leaders. In
will also understand how various interests have been an agricultural area, there may be another different set
accommodated in the final plan. Their understanding of of publics including farmers.
the decision-making process will, in turn, be communi-
cated to larger interest groups – neighborhood residents, For example, several government agencies in California
clubs, and municipal agencies – of which they are a held a Reuse Summit in 1994, at which they endorsed
part. Indeed the potential reuse customer who is enthu- the creation of the public outreach effort by creating the
siastic about the prospect of receiving service may be- following mission statement (Sheikh et al., 1996):
come one of the most effective means of generating
support for a program. This is certainly true with the “To activate community support for
urban reuse programs in St. Petersburg and Venice, water recycling through an outreach
Florida. In these communities, construction of distribu- program of educating and informing
tion lines is contingent on the voluntary participation of target audiences about the values
a percentage of customers within a given area. and benefits of recycled water.”
In other communities where reuse has not been intro- During that summit they also identified 8 public audiences:
duced in any form, the focus may begin with very small, Local Elected Officials, Regulatory Agency Staff, Gen-
specific audiences. For instance, a community may work eral Public, Environmental Community, City Planning
closely with golf course owners and superintendents to Staffs, Agricultural Community, Schools, and Newspaper
introduce reuse water as a resource to keep the golf Editorial Boards.
course in prime condition, even at times when other
water supplies are low. This small, informed constitu- From the outset of reuse planning, informal consultation
ency can then provide the community with a lead-in to with members of each of the groups comprising “the pub-
other reclaimed water options in the future. Golf course lic”, and formal presentations before them, should both
superintendents spread the word informally, and, as support the development of a sound base of local water
golfers see the benefits, the earliest of education cam- reuse information and, simultaneously, build a coalition
paigns has subtly begun. Later, the same community that can effectively advocate reuse in the community.
may choose to introduce an urban system, offering re- Keeping in mind that different groups have different inter-
claimed water for irrigation use. ests at stake, each presentation should be tailored to the
special needs and interests of the audience.
Since many reuse programs may ultimately require a
public referendum to approve a bond issue for funding If a reuse program truly has minimal impact on the gen-
reuse system capital improvements, diligently soliciting eral public, limited public involvement may be appropri-
community viewpoints and addressing any concerns ate. For example, use of reclaimed water for industrial
early in the planning process can be invaluable in gar- cooling and processing – with no significant capital im-
nering support. Public involvement early in the planning provements required of the municipality – may require
process, even as alternatives are beginning to be iden- support only from regulatory, technical, and health ex-
tified, allows ample time for the dissemination and ac- perts, as well as representatives from the prospective
ceptance of new ideas among the constituents. Public user and its employees. Reuse for pastureland irriga-
involvement can even expedite a reuse program by tion in isolated areas might be another example war-
uncovering any opposition early enough to adequately ranting only limited public participation.
address citizen concerns and perhaps modify the pro-
gram to better fit the community. 7.3 Overview of Public Perceptions
7.2 Defining the “Public” One of the most tried and true methods of determining
the public’s perception of reuse programs is surveys.
Many contemporary analyses of public involvement Surveys can determine whether or not there will be a large
define “the public” as comprising various subsets of “pub- enough consumer base to sustain a program, if the pro-
222
gram will be favorable enough to progress to the concep- 7.3.4 Clark County Sanitation District
tual and design stage, and the overall success of the Water Reclamation Opinion Surveys
project after implementation. The following projects high-
light different survey strategies and results across the Clark County (Las Vegas, Nevada) conducted a series
nation. of 4 different surveys. The surveys included a face-to-
face intercept survey at the Silver Bowl Park, a direct
7.3.1 Residential and Commercial Reuse mail survey with local residents in the Silver Bowl Park
in Tampa, Florida area, a direct mail survey to local residents in the Desert
Breeze Park vicinity, and face-to-face intercepts with
A survey done by the City of Tampa for its residential attendees of the EcoJam Earth Day Event. A total of
reuse project included a direct mailing and public opin- 883 persons participated in the survey (Alpha Commu-
ion survey. Information was sent to 15,500 potable wa- nications Inc., 2001).
ter customers in the conceptual project area. Out of the
pool of potential reuse customers, 84 percent of the resi- The majority (63.8 to 90.1 percent) of the responses were
dential users and 94 percent of the commercial users in very positive, replying that the “…overall benefits of re-
the South Tampa area thought that reclaimed water was claimed water usage are very beneficial.” There was a
safe for residential and commercial landscape irriga- small minority who had concerns with “…environmental
tion. Of the same group, 84 percent of the residential safety, bacteria, or germ build-up and general health risks
responders and 90 percent of the commercial respond- to children” (Alpha Communications Inc., 2001). Figure
ers replied that the project was appealing. The re- 7-3 shows a graphical representation of the average pub-
sponses met the design criteria of 90 percent participa- lic opinion responses from the 4 surveys regarding reuse
tion (Grosh et al., 2002). for 4 different uses: golf course irrigation, park irrigation,
industrial cooling, and decorative water features.
7.3.2 A Survey of WWTP Operators and
Managers Another portion of the survey asked if there were any
benefits of using reclaimed water at park facilities. Table
A study done by Hall and Rubin in 2002 surveyed 50 7-1 lists the responses.
wastewater operators and managers. Seventy percent
of the responders stated that they believed that reuse There is no question that the public’s enthusiasm for re-
would be an important part of their operation in 5 years. use (as noted in the cited studies) could reflect the hypo-
The majority (66 percent) thought that water reuse thetical conditions set up by the survey questions and
should be considered as an element of all water and interviews used rather than signify a genuine willingness
wastewater expansion facility permits. Ninety percent to endorse local funding of real programs that involve
wanted funding agencies to consider financial incentives distribution of reclaimed water for nonpotable use in their
to encourage more water reuse. Table 7-1 lists the sur- neighborhood. Survey results do indicate, however, that,
vey results (in percentages) to the inquiry for potential at least intellectually, “the public” is receptive to use of
use alternatives for reclaimed water. reclaimed water in well thought out programs. The re-
sults also support conclusions that this initial acceptance
7.3.3 Public Opinion in San Francisco, hinges in large measure on:
California
The public’s awareness of local water supply prob-
The City of San Francisco, California, surveyed the gen- lems and perception of reclaimed water as having
eral public to measure public acceptance of a proposed a place in the overall water supply allocation scheme
reclaimed water project. Figures 7-1 and 7-2 graphically
demonstrate the responses that were collected. The over- Public understanding of the quality of reclaimed wa-
all majority strongly felt that reclaimed water was benefi- ter and how it would be used
cial. Figure 7-2 shows that the responders felt positively
about all of the proposed uses of reclaimed water: fire Confidence in local management of the public utili-
fighting, irrigation of golf courses and parks, street clean- ties and in local application of modern technology
ing, toilet flushing, and drought protection.
Assurance that the reuse applications being consid-
ered involve minimal risk of accidental personal ex-
posure
223
Table 7-1. Positive and Negative Responses to Potential Alternatives for Reclaimed Water
Use Yes No
Irrigation of Athletic Fields 84 16
Irrigation of Office Parks and Business Campuses 82 18
Irrigation of Highway Right-of-way 85 15
Residential Landscape Irrigation and Maintenance 74 26
Golf Course Irrigation 89 11
Irrigation of Agricultural Crops 82 18
Irrigation of Crops for Direct Human Consumption 30 70
Vehicle Wash Water 76 24
Concrete Production 90 10
Dust Control 82 18
Stream Augmentation 67 33
Toilet Flushing 80 20
Fire Protection 84 16
Ornamental Ponds/Fountains 56 44
Street Cleaning 87 13
Industrial Process Water 78 22
Wetland Creation 84 16
Pools/Spas 15 85
Potable Reuse – Direct 18 82
Potable Reuse – Indirect 40 60
Adapted from Hall and Rubin, 2002
7.4 Involving the Public in Reuse extend water resources, then preliminary studies should
Planning address how much water will be made available through
reclamation and compare the costs to those needed to
Even where water reclamation is common, there is a develop other potable water sources. If reclamation costs
need to establish a flow of information to and from po- are not competitive, then overriding non-economic is-
tential reuse customers, so that they can have a clear sues must exist to equalize the value of the 2 sources.
understanding of the program and provide input regard- When reclamation is considered for environmental rea-
ing their needs and concerns. Equally important is the sons, such as to reduce or eliminate surface water dis-
need to address these concerns and answer any ques- charge, then the selected reuse alternative must also be
tions in a timely manner. This can help assure the pub- competitive with other disposal options. Above all, the
lic that their issues are being heard and that reuse plan- public must be aware of and understand all of the ben-
ners are being forthcoming in their efforts. efits.
Probably the most important step in encouraging the However, most potential reuse programs invoice choices
public acceptance is to establish and communicate the among systems with widely different economical and
expected project benefits. If the project is intended to environmental impacts, which are of varying degrees of
224
Figure 7-1. Public Beliefs and Opinions
100
Agree
90
Disagree
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Reclaimed Wasteful to Reclaimed Reclaimed Government Government Reclaimed Reclaimed City Doesn’t
Water Will Help Discharge Water Will Water Will Will Make Cannot Be Water Will Cost Water is Need Extra
in Dry Years Reclaimed Save Money Maintain Lake Reclaimed Trusted With Too Much Unsafe Water
Water into the in Long Run Water Levels Water Safe Reclaimed
Ocean
Adapted from Filice 1996
Figure 7-2. Support of Recycled Water Program Activities
100
90 Support
80 Oppose
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Fight Fires Water Parks & Clean Streets Flush Toilets Reduce Rationing
Golf Courses in Buildings (During Droughts)
Adapted from Filice 1996
225
Figure 7-3. Survey Results for Different Reuse
90
80
70 Golf Courses
Parks
60
Industrial Cooling
% Response
50 Water Features
40
30
20
10
0
Very Beneficial Some Benefit Neutral Little Benefit Not at all Beneficial
Data Source: Alpha Communications 2001
importance to many segments of the public. That is why tives. If additional facts or studies are needed, con-
development of the expected project benefits is so im- sider beginning them in the earliest stages so that
portant because once they are firmly established, they additional scientific data can be made available later
become the plants of a public information program – in the process. Unanswered questions can damage
the “why” the program is necessary and desirable. With- the credibility of the program effort.
out such validation, reclamation programs will be un-
able to withstand public scrutiny and the likelihood of Create a master list of stakeholders, including agen-
project failure increases. In addition, only after the “why” cies, departments, elected officials, potential cus-
is established can the “who” and “how” in public involve- tomers, and others who will be impacted in some
ment truly be determined. way. It might be helpful to identify the level of inter-
est different individuals and groups will have in the
7.4.1 General Requirements for Public reuse planning process.
Participation
Begin public outreach to specific target audiences
Figure 7-4 provides a flow chart of a public participa- in the form of informal meetings involving direct
tion program for water reuse system planning. contact, limiting the number invited at any one time
so that individual discussion is more easily accom-
The following items suggest an example approach that plished
a community might consider in developing a reuse pro-
gram. Note that information tools will vary depending Determine whether a task force or advisory com-
upon how broad or involved an information program is mittee is needed. If so, take steps to formally ad-
needed. vertise and be sure to include representatives from
the target audience groups. Plan a schedule and
Determine, internally, the community’s reuse goals target date for reaching consensus on reuse alter-
and the associated options and/or alternatives to natives; then plan well-prepared meetings that in-
be further considered. vite two-way communications. Bring in outside ex-
perts, such as scientists, to answer questions when
Identify any scientific/technical facts that exist, or needed.
are needed, to help explain the issues and alterna-
226
Figure 7-4. Public Participation Program for Water Reuse System Planning
Specific
Users General
Survey Survey
Alternatives Plan of Plan Project

Identification Study Selection Implementation
& Evaluation
Preliminary Customer- Public Customer-Specific

Investigation Specific Notification/ Information
Workshops Involvement Program(s)
Target Broader
Audience Public Group
Table 7-2. Survey Results for Different Reuse
Purpose Tools
Communitywide News media, editorial boards, program web site, traveling exhibits, brochures, educational
Education/Information videos, school programs, open houses
Neighborhood meetings, speeches and presentations to citizen/stakeholder groups, direct

Direct Stakeholder or
mail letters and surveys, program “hotlines” for answering information or managing
Citizen Contact
construction complaints
Public workshops, public meetings, presentations to elected bodies, public hearings,

Formalized Process
advisory committees, special task forces
From the task force or advisory committee, the commu- eral distribution survey may be helpful in identifying
nity should be able to identify public issues that need level of interest, potential customers, and any initial
further attention, and determine which additional public concerns that the population might have. Where
information tools will be needed. Table 7-2 outlines a specific concerns are identified, later public infor-
number of public information tools that can be used in mation efforts can be tailored to address them.
the public participation process. These tailored efforts could include participation by
other public agencies that can provide information
Once the issues are identified and public reaction is on water reuse and regulatory requirements, infor-
anticipated, the following tools may be useful in con- mal discussions with some potential users to deter-
veying information to the broader public: mine interest or fill data gaps, and initial background
reports to appropriate local decision- making bodies.
Citizen survey. Can be conducted via direct mail or
telephone and might be accompanied by media re- As the program progresses to alternative identifica-
leases to help increase the number of surveys re- tion and evaluation, another survey might be con-
turned or calls answered. In the early stages, a gen- sidered. This survey could help confirm earlier re-
227
sults, monitor the effectiveness of the ongoing edu- Once a reuse program has been determined, additional
cation program, or target specific users. Note that public information efforts will be needed throughout the
the percentage of citizens who take the time to par- implementation phase, including notification to citizens
ticipate in a survey varies widely from one commu- prior to construction occurring near their home or busi-
nity to another. This should not be the only tool re- ness. Then, as the reuse program goes on-line, addi-
lied upon in gathering input. tional media relations and direct mailings will be needed.
In the case of urban reuse, this will include information
Open houses. Advertise periodic public open houses to help homeowners through the connection process.
where information is made available and knowledge-
able people are on hand to answer questions. Maps, The City of Tampa’s residential reclaimed water project
displays, and brief slide demonstrations are all useful (Florida) is one example of a successful comprehensive
open house tools. public participation program. The City used the services
of Roberts Communication to conduct a targeted public
Program website. Increasingly, citizens are turning education program, which included the following elements
to websites as important information sources. Such (Grosh et al., 2002):
a website can be purely informational or it can invite
citizens to ask questions. The website should be Opinion leader interviews
updated on a regular basis and can include: its own
survey or results of a citizen survey, answers to fre- Public opinion survey
quently asked questions, information regarding other
successful programs in nearby communities, or a Speakers bureau
slideshow-style presentation that outlines the pro-
gram goals and alternatives being considered. Direct mail to potential customers
Media relations. In addition to project news releases, Newsletter article for homeowner association news-
it can be very helpful to spend extra time with re- letters
porters who will be covering the topic on a regular
basis, providing added background data, plant tours, 7.4.1.1 Public Advisory Groups or Task Forces
and informal updates at appropriate times. This
helps to provide accurate, balanced reports. The If the scope or potential scope of the reuse program
media can also be helpful in making survey data warrants (e.g., reclaimed water may be distributed to
known, and in posting maps of construction areas several users or types of users, or for a more contro-
once program implementation is underway. versial use), a public advisory group or task force can
be formed to assist in defining system features and re-
Direct mail updates or occasional newspaper inserts. solving problem areas. In its regulations for full-scale
These updates allow the community to address public participation programs, EPA requires that such
questions or issues - not relying specifically on a group membership contain “substantially equivalent”
media report. representation from the private (non-interested), orga-
nized, representative, and affected segments of the
Briefings for government officials. Because water public. It is recommended that, for reuse planning, group
reclamation programs often end up with a vote by a membership provide representation from potential us-
city council, county commission, or other elected ers and their employees, interest groups, neighborhood
body, it is vital that each elected official be well- residents, other public agencies, and citizens with spe-
informed throughout the reuse planning process. cialized expertise in areas (such as public health) that
Therefore, informal briefings for individual officials pertain directly to reclamation/reuse.
can be an invaluable tool. These briefings are often
conducted prior to public workshops and formal The advantage of an advisory group or task force is
votes, and allow questions to be answered in ad- that it offers an opportunity to truly educate a core group
vance of a larger, public setting. that may later become unofficial “spokespersons” for
the project. For such a group to be successful, mem-
Plant or project tours. During the education process, bers must see that their input is being put to meaningful
a tour of an existing project that is similar to the one use. Depending upon the community need, either an
proposed can be an especially useful tool in provid- advisory committee or task force may be appropriate.
ing information to key stakeholders, such as an ad- Advisory committees are generally formed for an inde-
visory committee, elected body, or the media. terminate period to continuously provide input regard-
228
ing issues related to the topic. So, if an advisory com- larger community, should be thoroughly informed of the
mittee is formed for reuse water, the committee may be reuse planning process, be objective in presenting in-
kept as a recommending body to city council, county formation, and have the ‘clout’ necessary to communi-
commission, or other elected body, regarding all future cate and get fast response on issues or problems raised
reclaimed water projects or issues. Often, members of by citizens involved in the process.
the advisory group are designated to serve 2-year terms.
With the development of a task force, the objectives are To accomplish this goal, many communities involved in
clearly defined and the task force disbands once the urban and agricultural reuse have created a dedicated
objectives have been met. Often, a task force can be a reuse coordinator position. The responsibilities of such
better short-term solution. a position will vary according to specific conditions and
preferences of a given municipality. In many programs,
Whether a community chooses a task force or advisory the reuse coordinator is part of the wastewater treat-
committee, it is very important to take steps to institu- ment department. However, the position can be associ-
tionalize the group and its activities so that its efforts ated with the water system, or independent of either
are formally recognized as meaningful by the elected utility.
body. This group can effectively focus on the task at
hand—planning and implementation of a reuse program 7.4.2 Specific Customer Needs
in which the legitimate interests of various sectors of
the public have been fully considered and addressed. As alternatives for water reuse are being considered,
In order to achieve this, the proposed formation of the the customers associated with each alternative should
advisory group or task force should be publicized to be clearly identified, and then the needs of these cus-
solicit recommendations for, and expression of interest tomers must be ascertained and addressed. In the past,
in, membership. Often, the community and its leader- failure to take this step has resulted in costly and dis-
ship will be aware of candidates who would be ideal to ruptive delays to reclamation projects. Early involvement
fulfill this role. of citizen stakeholders is a key to program success and
is based on tailoring a program to the specific user type
Whether a short-lived task force or a longer-term advi- and type of reuse system.
sory committee, the group’s responsibilities should be
well-defined. Its meetings should be open to the public 7.4.2.1 Urban Systems
at times and places announced in advance. Interpretive
meeting minutes should be kept and made available to In urban reuse programs, the customer base may con-
the public. During an initial meeting, the group’s mem- sist of literally thousands of individuals who may be
bers should designate a single individual who can serve reached through the local media, publicly advertised
as a contact point for the news media. The group should workshops, open houses, or neighborhood meetings.
fully recognize its shared responsibility for developing a Identification of homeowner associations and civic or-
sound reuse program that can serve both user require- ganizations may allow for presentations to a larger num-
ments and community objectives. In subsequent public ber of potential customers at a single time.
meetings, the group will assert its combined role as a
source of information representing numerous interests, The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
and an advocate of the reuse program as it gains defi- (MRWPCA) is one example of a public information pro-
nition. gram that reaches a large urban audience. It has an
active school education program with classroom dem-
7.4.1.2 Public Participation Coordinator onstrations to about 2,300 children each year. Booths
at the County Fair and other local events reach another
EPA regulations for full-scale public participation pro- 7,500 people. Speeches to civic and service groups
grams require appointment of a public participation co- reach another 900 people. Together with the 800 people
ordinator – an individual skilled in developing, publiciz- who tour the water reclamation plant each year, 5 per-
ing, and conducting informal briefings and work ses- cent of the service area population is being educated
sions as well as formal presentations for various com- each year. Bimonthly billing inserts add to the local un-
munity groups. The appointment of a public participa- derstanding and appreciation of water reclamation.
tion coordinator helps ensure that one accurate source
of information is available, and that individuals who show 7.4.2.2 Agricultural Systems
interest are given an opportunity to provide meaningful
input. Such a person, whether an agency staff member, In agricultural reuse programs, the issues of concern may
advisory group member or specialist engaged from the differ from those of the urban customer. In such pro-
229
grams, the user is concerned with the suitability of the Regulatory agencies, health departments, and other
reclaimed water for the intended crop. Water quality is- health and safety-related groups will be key audiences
sues that are of minor importance in residential irrigation throughout the process. These are groups the public turns
may be of significant importance for agricultural produc- to for answers; therefore, it is very important to develop
tion. For example, nitrogen in reclaimed water is gener- strong working relationships. Representatives from local
ally considered a benefit in turf and landscape irrigation. agencies are also most likely to understand the issues
However, as noted in the Sonoma Case Study in Chap- that need to be addressed and can provide meaningful
ter 3, the nitrogen in agricultural reclaimed water could input regarding reuse options. Endorsement from these
result in excessive foliage growth at the expense of fruit agencies is critical to program acceptance by the public.
production. Similarly, while turf grass and many orna-
mental plants may not be harmed by elevated chlorides, 7.4.3 Agency Communication
the same chloride levels may delay crop maturation and
affect the product marketability, as occurred in the straw- As noted in Chapters 4 and 5, the implementation of
berry irrigation study for the Irvine Ranch Water District wastewater reclamation projects may be subject to re-
discussed in Section 3.4. view and approval by numerous state and local regula-
tory agencies. In locations where such projects are com-
For these reasons and others, it is necessary to modify mon, the procedures for agency review may be well-es-
the public participation approach used for the urban tablished. Where reclamation is just starting, formal re-
customer when developing an agricultural program. view procedures may not exist. In either case, establish-
Agencies traditionally associated with agricultural ac- ing communication with these agencies early in the project
tivities can provide an invaluable source of technical is as important as addressing the needs of the potential
information and means of transmitting information to the customers. Early meetings may serve as an introduction
potential user. Local agricultural extension agents may or may involve detailed discussions of the permitability
prove to be the most important constituency to commu- of a given project. As with all other types of stakehold-
nicate as to the benefits of reclamation to the agricul- ers, the proposed project must be understood and en-
tural community. The agents will likely know most, if not dorsed by the permitting agencies.
all, of the major agricultural sites in the area. In addi-
tion, they will be familiar with the critical water quality It may also be appropriate to contact other agencies that
and quantity issues facing the local agricultural market. may still become involved with a public education pro-
Finally, the local farmers usually see the extension of- gram. In fact, early coordination with key agencies, such
fice as a reliable source of information and are likely to as a community health department, is an important con-
seek their opinion on issues of concern, as might be the sideration for a couple of reasons. First, the agency may
case with new reclamation projects. The local exten- not be well-informed about the community’s reuse goals.
sion agent will be able to discuss the issues with local Early discussions can help to answer questions and iden-
farmers and hopefully endorse the project if they are tify issues at a time when the issues can most easily be
familiar with the concept of reuse. The local soils con- addressed. Second, because the public often turns to
servation service may also prove an important target of these agencies for information, early meetings will help
a preliminary information program. Lack of endorsement to ensure that citizens receive accurate, consistent an-
from these agencies can hinder the implementation of swers. If a citizen were to ask one agency a question
agricultural reclamation. and receive a different answer than the community repre-
sentative gave, credibility of the program can be under-
7.4.2.3 Reclaimed Water for Potable Purposes mined.
While “reuse” of water has occurred naturally over the Where multiple departments in the same agency are in-
ages, the concept of treating wastewater to a level that volved, direct communication with all concerned depart-
is acceptable for drinking is the most difficult type of ments will ensure coordination. It is worthwhile to estab-
water reuse to gain public acceptance. In such cases lish a master list of the appropriate agencies and depart-
public health and safety issues are of utmost importance ments that will be copied on status reports and periodi-
and citizen questions will need to be fully addressed. cally asked to attend review meetings. And while this
Therefore, a comprehensive public participation effort communication will be beneficial in developing any recla-
will be required, initially focusing on the water problems mation project, it will be critical when specific regulatory
to be addressed, and then turning to a thorough look at guidance on a proposed project does not exist. Such a
possible solutions. condition is most likely to occur in states lacking de-
tailed regulations or in states with very restrictive regula-
tions that discourage reuse projects.
230
7.4.4 Public Information Through use has been in place for more than 10 years, the City
Implementation launched an education campaign gently reminding citi-
zens to conserve.
No matter the type of reclaimed water project, some
level of construction will be involved at the implementa- 7.5 Case Studies
tion stage. Citizens who may not have had an opinion
prior to construction could become negative if the pro- 7.5.1 Accepting Produce Grown with
cess does not go smoothly. This can be especially chal- Reclaimed Water: Monterey,
lenging in urban reuse programs when citizen “disrup- California
tions” are more visible. Whenever possible, minimal dis-
ruption to sidewalks and driveways should be planned, For many years some vegetables and fruits have been
along with a speedy restoration effort. It will be worth- grown in foreign countries with reclaimed water and then
while for the community to have a formal construction sold in the U.S. This practice suggests acceptance on
complaint process in place that offers one phone num- the part of the distributors and consumers. In Orange
ber to call regarding problems, and a tracking system County, California, the Irvine Company has been furrow
that documents how quickly complaints are resolved. irrigating broccoli, celery, and sweet corn with reclaimed
Public information regarding construction activities can water for over 20 years.
be made available through the local media. The com-
munity will also need an information program regarding In 1983, as part of the Monterey Wastewater Reclama-
connections to the system, with emphasis on making tion Study for Agriculture (see description in Section 3.8),
the process as simple as possible for each customer. individuals involved with produce distribution were in-
terviewed regarding the use of reclaimed water for veg-
7.4.5 Promoting Successes etable irrigation. One hundred and forty-four interviews
were conducted with:
In communities where the use of reclaimed water is new,
short-term project successes can become a strong sell- Brokers and receivers at terminal markets through-
ing point for later, larger programs. Such is the case out the U.S. and Canada
with communities that may begin an urban program by
using reclaimed water in highly visible public medians. Buyers for major cooperative wholesalers in princi-
Citizens who drive pass these medians are likely to note pal cities
improvements over time and see “reclaimed water” signs
posted at the site. Over time, as a reuse program be- Buyers, merchandisers, and store managers with
comes more established, the public information special- small, medium, and large chains
ists will need to look for other opportunities to talk about
how the program is helping the community. These fol- The primary focus of the interviews was the need or
low-up information efforts provide an important role in desire to label produce grown with reclaimed water. The
making reuse water a long-term solution for the com- results are given in Table 7-3.
munity.
The responses indicated the product would be accepted,
Reclaimed water has been actively and successfully and that labels would not be considered necessary.
used in urban applications for more than 30 years. These According to federal, state, and local agency staff, the
long-term successes have helped to encourage more source of the water used for irrigation was not subject
and more communities to make use of this resource. to labeling requirements. Produce trade members indi-
As citizens have grown to accept and embrace the use cated labeling would only be desirable if it added value
of reclaimed water, a new need for education has arisen to the product. Buyers stated that good appearance of
because the supply of reclaimed water is limited and the product was foremost. An abbreviated update of the
should not be wastefully used any more than potable 1983 survey was conducted in 1995 and led to these
water should not be over-used. The problem of reclaimed same conclusions.
water over-use seems to be especially true in commu-
nities that do not have metering systems to track the Since 1998, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Con-
specific amount of water used. Metering systems, and trol Agency (MRWPCA) has been providing reclaimed wa-
a sliding scale for payment according to the amount ter for nearly 12,000 acres (4,900 hectares) of vegetables
used, are examples of approaches that some commu- and strawberries. Growers, especially those with a world
nities use to encourage conservative use of the re- known brand, are reluctant to advertise the source of
claimed water. In Cape Coral, Florida, where urban re- water used on their crops. They believe the water is as
231
Table 7-3. Trade Reactions and Expectations Regarding Produce Grown with Reclaimed Water
Respondents Knowledgeable About Respondents Not Aware of

Reaction or Expectation
Reclaimed Water Reclaimed Water
Would Carry 64% 50%

Would Not Carry 20% 25%
Don’t Know 16% 25%
TOTAL 100% 100%
Would Not Expect it to be Labeled 68% 67%
Would Expect it to be Labeled 20% 25%
Don’t Know 12% 8%
TOTAL 100% 100%
Total Number of Respondents=68

Source: Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, 2002
good as or better than other irrigation water but are con- editing the manual, continuing to prepare for different pos-
cerned with perception issues. Consequently, 3 ap- sible scenarios, and preparing to train members on how
proaches are being followed to address these concerns: to deal with the press. The growers are still concerned
operating the treatment plant beyond the regulatory re- about perception issues, but are confident that they have
quirements, low profile education of local residents, and prepared for most possibilities.
planning for real or perceived problems with the produce.
7.5.2 Water Independence in Cape Coral -
MRWPCA strives to meet Title 22 requirements (<2 NTU, An Implementation Update in 2003
>5 ppm chlorine residual, <23 MPN max.) when the wa-
ter enters the distribution system. This is usually 1 day The City of Cape Coral, Florida, is one of the fastest
after being held in an open storage pond following treat- growing communities in the country. At 33 years old,
ment. During the peak growing season, chlorine residual this southwest Florida community has a year-round popu-
is maintained in the water until it is applied to the crops. lation of more than 113,000 people. However, like many
The storage pond is sampled for fecal coliform, emerg- Florida communities, the population fluctuates with more
ing pathogens, Clostridium, and priority pollutants. All than 18,000 additional residents in the winter months.
the results are shared with the growers via the What makes the City truly unique is its vast developer-
MRWPCA’s website (www.mrwpca.org) and through planned canal system, with platted lots throughout the
monthly grower meetings. community. City planners knew well in advance that they
would eventually need to supply water to more than
MRWPCA has an active school education program with 400,000 residents.
classroom demonstrations to about 2,300 children each
year. Booths at the county fair and other local events Water supply concerns, coupled with a need to find an
reach another 7,500 people. Speeches to civic and ser- acceptable method for ultimately disposing of 42 mgd
vice groups reach another 900. Along with 800 people of wastewater effluent, prompted the City to develop a
coming to tour the water reclamation plant each year, 5 program called, “Water Independence in Cape Coral”
percent of the service area population is being educated (WICC). WICC includes a unique dual-water system de-
each year. Bimonthly billing inserts add to the local un- signed to provide potable water through one set of pipes
derstanding and appreciation of water reclamation. and secondary, irrigation water through a second set of
pipes. This secondary water would be provided through
The Water Quality and Operations Committee is a group reclaimed water and freshwater canals.
consisting of project growers, the county health depart-
ment, and the reclaimed water purveyors. It meets monthly Implementation of WICC did not come easy. The WICC
and decides policy issues for the project. That group hired master plan was prepared, presented, and adopted by
a public relations firm to plan for a crisis, and a crisis the City with relatively little interest from the public. How-
communication manual was prepared. The committee is ever, when attempts were made to move forward with
232
Phase 1 (issuance of special property assessment no- mands. The secondary water is treated and filtered be-
tices), some members of the public became very vocal fore going into the distribution system.
and were successful in delaying the project. From the
time the City committed to proceed, it took 6.5 years to In 2002, the City successfully used secondary water to
start up Phase 1. Table 7-4 lists the chronology of the irrigate more than 15 miles (24 km) of landscaped me-
WICC implementation and highlights the challenges faced dians. Other benefits have included the availability of
by the City in moving forward. year round irrigation at a reasonable price to custom-
ers, the deferred expansion of a City wellfield, the de-
The City began using the secondary water system in ferred construction of a second reverse osmosis water
1992. Had a public awareness campaign been launched treatment facility by a number of years, and nearly zero
in the early years, it could have addressed citizen con- discharge of effluent into the nearby Caloosahatchee
cerns prior to finalizing the special assessment program. River.
Cape Coral’s experience provides a valuable lesson to
other communities introducing reuse water. As Cape Coral residents came to accept secondary wa-
ter as an irrigation source, the City found a need to launch
During the first 8 years of using secondary water, Cape an entirely different kind of education campaign. In re-
Coral was able to conserve more than 4 billion gallons sponse to “over-watering” by some customers and con-
(15 million m3) of potable water that would previously have cerns by regulatory agencies, the City began to enforce
been used for irrigation purposes. The system works by limited watering days and times, just as with potable
pumping reclaimed water from storage tanks to the distri- water. The City’s new education campaign underscored
bution system. Five canal pump stations transfer sur- the message that secondary water should be recognized
face water from freshwater canals, as needed. Variable as a resource, not a “disposal issue.” The City created a
speed effluent pumps respond to varying customer de- friendly “Cape Coral Irrigator,” using a smiling alligator,
Table 7-4. Chronology of WICC Implementation
City WICC report prepared

November 1985
WICC concept is born
January 1988 WICC master plan adopted
Assessment hearing with 1,200 vocal citizens

April 1988
WICC program stopped
City Council election
November 9, 1988 Pro-WICC/Anti-WICC campaign
Low voter turnout/Anti-WICC prevailed
Deadlocked City Council

State water management threatens potable allocation cutback
November 1988 -
Supportive rate study
October 1989
Supportive citizen's review committee
Requested increase to potable water allocation denied
WICC referendum
November 1989 60% voter turnout
WICC wins 2-to-1
December 1989 Second assessment hearing
February 1990 Construction started for Phase I
March 1992 Phase 1 starts up
September 1992 Phase 2 start up is scheduled
October 1994 Phase 3 start up is scheduled
233
to remind homeowners about dry season watering times Convening a public advisory committee early in the
and good conservation practices. The City also created project’s development, which included a broad cross
an Irrigator Hotline for people to call to confirm watering section of community interests
schedules, and the City’s Code Enforcement began is-
suing citations to violators to make the message clear. Engaging members of the advisory committee and
others, including the Sierra Club, County Medical
As Cape Coral continues to grow, the City is looking to Society, and Chamber of Commerce, to speak on
expand its secondary system at the same time that crews behalf of the project
bring water and sewer service to new areas of this 114-
square-mile (295-km2) community. In another creative Developing easy-to-understand information materi-
endeavor, the City is working to increase the supply of als and disseminating them widely to potential stake-
secondary water through weir improvements by season- holders
ally raising weirs to store more water in the canals. These
weir improvements may make it possible to supply sec- Making presentations to community groups and held
ondary water to an even larger customer base. Cape Coral numerous workshops and open houses
has one of the largest, fully integrated water manage-
ment systems in the country and will bear watching in Taking members of the public and key stakeholders
the future. on tours of the pilot plant where taste tests were
held using repurified water
7.5.3 Learning Important Lessons When
Projects Do Not Go as Planned Briefing policy-makers and their staffs
Over the last decade, reclaimed water proponents have While the project team worked to educate and involve
been highly successful in convincing the public about stakeholders in the process from the early planning
the benefits of reclaimed water for irrigation. That stages, the following “outside” factors emerged and may
“hurdle” has, for the most part, been surpassed. But have influenced public perception:
public questions and concerns continue to emerge about
using reclaimed water for anything related to potable Once the project moved from concept to design,
supplies. Today, science and technology make it pos- the City of San Diego’s wastewater department took
sible to treat reclaimed water to drinking water stan- over as the lead agency. This may have served to
dards. But, even as an indirect water supply source, portray the project as a wastewater disposal solu-
case studies continue to find hesitation by citizens to tion rather than a water supply solution.
embrace highly treated reclaimed water as a potable
water source. This is especially true when other water Lesson to consider: If possible, stay with the same
supply options become available. Over time, and as project team, especially leadership, from inception
more successes in the potable reclaimed water arena through completion. Keep the project goal clear and
are achieved, this hurdle may also be surpassed. unchanging. Try to avoid sending mixed messages.
The following 2 case studies illustrate some of the chal- During the 5 years from concept to design, another
lenges that can emerge as programs strive to move for- water supply alternative emerged. Proponents of an
ward from the conceptual stage. agricultural water transfer positioned it as a supe-
rior alternative to indirect potable reuse and
7.5.3.1 San Diego, California launched an aggressive promotional campaign. In
fact, the 2 projects were complementary, one pro-
In 1993, the City of San Diego began exploring the feasi- viding a new source of imported water, the other a
bility of using highly treated wastewater, or reclaimed locally controlled water source.
water, to augment imported water supplies. The con-
cept of this “Water Repurification Project” was to treat Lesson to consider: If a new alternative is proposed
reclaimed water to an even higher standard and then in a public forum, it needs to be formally recognized
pipe it into a surface water reservoir. There, the re- and evaluated before the original or an enhanced
claimed water would blend with the raw water supply, concept can move forward. Otherwise, the credibil-
thus increasing the water supply available. ity of the original concept may be harmed. In some
instances, ideas can be blended through public in-
Some positive public involvement efforts undertaken by volvement to develop a more tailored community so-
the Water Repurification Project team included: lution. The goal is to partner with others wherever
234
possible and to avoid an “us versus them” environ- Lesson to Consider: Developing ongoing relationships
ment. with knowledgeable reporters and editorial boards is
critical.
The time when the project was ready for final ap-
proval from the San Diego City Council coincided The National Research Council issued a report on
with several competitive elections. The project be- indirect potable reuse just prior to the project’s con-
came a political issue. Key votes were delayed until sideration by the San Diego City Council. While the
after the election. report was largely favorable, the executive summary
included a statement that indirect potable reuse
Lesson to consider: Much time is often dedicated to should be considered an “option of last resort.” That
educating community leaders about a project. Elec- comment made national news and was viewed as
tions can disrupt the timing of implementation be- scientific validation that the project was unsafe.
cause added time is then needed to educate new
leaders. When possible, big picture planning should Spurred by local media coverage and direct mail
consider key election dates, timing project deadlines from political candidates criticizing the project, a
and approvals prior to any major shifts on a council group of County residents formed to actively op-
or commission. pose the project. The “Revolting Grandmas” at-
tended all hearings and public meetings to speak
A State Assembly member running for re-election against the project and wrote letters to the media
called for special state hearings on the project, pro- and elected officials. Members of the Revolting
viding a forum for the candidate’s allies to attack Grandmas lived outside the City’s jurisdiction and,
the project. The same candidate sent a direct-mail therefore, had not been included on project mailing
“survey” to constituents asking if they supported lists to receive accurate information for the past 5
“drinking sewage.” An underdog City Council can- years.
didate raised the issue of environmental justice by
stating, inaccurately, that while the wastewater Lesson to Consider: While it may be impossible to
source was the affluent part of the city, the water identify every stakeholder group in the process, this
recipients were in lower economic and ethnically situation highlights just how critical early identifica-
diverse neighborhoods. Even though this was not tion of a complete list of stakeholders can be.
true, the misinformation spread with the help of lo-
cal radio talk show personalities and African-Ameri- A private developer of gray water systems attacked
can activists. Several African-American ministers the project repeatedly with elected officials and the
appeared at City Council hearings to protest politi- media, claiming gray water was a superior water
cians “using them as guinea pigs.” supply option. The company president argued gray
water was safer and more cost-effective than indirect
Lesson to consider: If the public hears a particular potable reuse.
“fact” as little as 3 times, then, regardless of whether
or not the information is true, this “fact” will begin to Lesson to Consider: Sometimes, providing a direct
be perceived as truth. This is why it is so important response to a party with an opposing view can be
to correct inaccuracies whenever possible, as quickly the correct response. But, at other times, providing
as possible. If, for instance, a newspaper article pro- a response may serve to validate the other person’s
vides incorrect facts about a project and no one calls claims in the eyes of the public. It is important to
the reporter to correct the story, then the report is evaluate the level of response needed on a case-
filed in the newspaper archives as factual. The next by-case basis.
time a story is needed about the project, a different
reporter then uses the previous story for background 7.5.3.2 Public Outreach May not be Enough:
information. This article is very likely to repeat the Tampa, Florida
wrong information.
In the late 1990s, the City of Tampa, Tampa Bay Water,
Even after briefings, the lead editorial writer for water and the SWFWMD, in cooperation with the EPA, studied
issues at The San Diego Union-Tribune felt any kind the feasibility of developing a water purification project
of water reuse was too costly and ill advised. News for the area. Reclaimed water, treated further at a supple-
reporters borrowed the “Toilet to Tap” description mental water reclamation treatment facility, would be
(used by media covering a groundwater project in blended with surface water and treated again at the City’s
Los Angeles) in their ongoing coverage. water treatment facility. A public outreach program was
235
developed to enhance and improve the public’s under- A National Research Council report critical of indi-
standing of the region’s water problem, its long history of rect potable reuse was released just prior to when
conflict over water issues, and public perceptions about the Tampa Bay Water Board was called upon to
government and indirect potable reuse. While there were approve the project. The report created a percep-
significant challenges to overcome, a public information tion that the scientific community was not in favor of
program began to make headway through the use of the indirect potable reuse.
following efforts:
The Tampa project shows the importance of gaining
Identified and interviewed key stakeholders, conducted support of policymakers, senior staff and elected offi-
focus groups, and conducted a public opinion sur- cials. It may be worthwhile to consider these among the
vey first target audiences, before working toward a broader
public involvement effort.
Developed project fact sheets, frequently asked ques-
tions materials, and brochures 7.5.4 Pinellas County, Florida Adds
Reclaimed Water to Three R’s
Drafted a comprehensive communication plan for the of Education
project
When Pinellas County Utilities renovated the South
Formed a public working committee and developed Cross Bayou Water Reclamation Facility, the depart-
its operating framework ment saw an opportunity to use the new facility as a
learning laboratory to teach “real-life” science to stu-
Developed a project video, website, and layperson’s dents and other County residents. The effort to make the
guide to the Independent Advisory Committee’s rec- vision a reality began more than a year ago with the con-
ommendations. struction of an Educational/Welcome Center that is now
home to a multifaceted, hands-on educational program.
Supported the Ecosystem Team Permitting process
that resulted in permit issuance Initially focusing on high school science students and
adult visitors, utility officials worked closely with County
Conducted public meetings, open houses, and work- high school teachers to develop “Discover a Cleaner
shops Tomorrow” as an appropriate curriculum to enhance
classroom learning. The curriculum was designed to
Although the outreach program reached a broad audi- support National Science Standards, Sunshine State
ence and the project was permitted, it has yet to be Standards, and student preparedness for the Florida
implemented. Several factors contributed to the lack of Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) tests.
implementation, including a lack of support among Through a partnership with the Pinellas County School
agency policymakers and senior staff. Specific examples Board, a certified science educator modifies the cur-
include: riculum for each visiting class and teaches the scientific
principles and methods involved in water reclamation.
Policymakers viewed the project as a choice among
seawater desalination, creating a new reservoir in Before they visit the South Cross Bayou site, students
an old phosphate pit, and developing the purified are introduced to the topic of wastewater treatment
water project. Many policymakers considered de- through an animated video focusing on the role of bac-
salination the preferred option. teria. The video sets the tone for serious learning through
humor in the light-hearted production. When they arrive
The City of Tampa Department of Sanitary Sewers at the site, students are introduced to the facility tour
was the main project proponent, positioning the with a second short feature, a sequel to the classroom
project from the wastewater side. The City of Tampa video. A third video was developed for the general pub-
Water Department was not actively involved. lic. Titled “Undissolved Mysteries,” it features a detec-
tive/narrator who roams through the facility uncovering
A general manager of a local water agency vocally the mysteries of water reclamation.
opposed the project. Tampa Bay Water, the region’s
water agency, did not speak out to counter the op- After the video presentations, visitors board a tram that
position. transports them through the 35-acre site. Hands-on in-
vestigation helps students and other visitors gain a bet-
ter understanding of wastewater treatment processes.
236
Students test the wastewater at 2 different locations for 7.5.6 Gwinnett County, Georgia – Master
dissolved oxygen, nitrates, nitrites, and total suspended Plan Update Authored by Public
solids. They compare their results with those from the
professional on-site laboratory, as well as those from other Population and economic growth, as well as an extended
high school groups, adding a competitive element to the drought, forced Gwinnett County, Georgia, to reassess
tour. Students must each complete an exercise and ob- its water strategy. While simultaneously building the 20-
servation notebook as they take the tour, creating ac- mgd North Advanced Water Reclamation Facility
countability in meeting specific learning objectives. (NAWRF), the county also initiated a multi-stakeholder
program to update its Water and Wastewater Master
Visitors to the facility develop a better understanding of Plan in order to combat growing water problems.
the science involved in water reclamation, the role citi-
zens play in managing limited water resources, the im- The NAWRF is an 11-step reclamation facility that in-
portance of clean water, and the range of career oppor- cludes primary, secondary, and advanced treatment as
tunities in wastewater treatment and management. well as a 20-mile (32-km) pipeline to discharge plant ef-
fluent to the Chattahoochee River. Unit processes at the
7.5.5 Yelm, Washington, A Reclaimed plant include: clarifying tanks, biological treatment, mem-
Water Success Story brane filters, sand and activated carbon filters, and ozone
gas disinfection. During construction, projections led the
The City of Yelm, Washington, boasts an $11 million County to begin plans to renovate the plant to double its
water reclamation facility that has gained statewide rec- capacity to 40 mgd (1,750 l/s).
ognition and become a local attraction. Yelm recycles
200,000 gpd (760 m3/d) of water, with plans to eventu- As part of the multi-stakeholder program to update the
ally recycle 1 mgd (3,800 m3/d). The system has been master plan, the county created an Advisory Panel. The
producing Class A reclaimed water since its inception panel, created in 1996, had meetings facilitated by the
in August 2001; however, the jewel of the facility is an Gwinnett County Department of Public Utilities (DPU)
8-acre (3-hectare) memorial park and fishing pond. At with assistance from an environmental consulting firm.
the park, a constructed wetlands system de-chlorinates, Polls were held at public meetings to identify 7 catego-
re-oxygenates, and further cleans, screens, and moves ries of stakeholder groups (Hartley, 2003):
the water through a wetland park of several ponds, in-
cluding a catch-and-release fishing pond stocked with Homeowner associations
rainbow trout. City representatives say the park has be-
come a good place for fishing and viewing wildlife. There’s Business community
even been a wedding held on site. The City also uses
the reclaimed water for irrigation at a middle school and Development interests
a number of churches. The water is also used to wash
school buses and to supply a number of fire hydrants. Large water users
Yelm is actively promoting public awareness about re- Gwinnett County cities
claimed water. Twenty-five elementary and middle
school students entered a city-sponsored contest to see Environmental organizations
who could come up with the most creative water reuse
mascot. The winning mascot, designed by a fifth grader, Citizens-at-large
was a purple pipe aptly named, “Mike the Pipe.” Stu-
dents and teachers then took the concept a step further Representatives were selected from each of these stake-
and created an interactive skit using Mike the Pipe and holder groups and were responsible for attending meet-
other characters to talk about what can be done with ings and conveying information to and from their respec-
water that is poured down a drain. Some of the other tive groups. Public meetings were held the first Tuesday
characters included, “Water Sprite,” “Sledge,” and “Little of each month for 18 months. The following list of goals
Bug.” and objectives were developed by the Advisory Panel
throughout the 18-month discourse (Hartley, 2003):
The City of Yelm Water Reclamation Facility has won
awards from the American Public Works Association, Improve reliability of water and sewer system
the Association of Washington Cities, and, in 2002, the
Department of Ecology presented the City with an Envi- Develop strong maintenance and rehabilitation pro-
ronmental Excellence Award. grams
237
Protect public health and the environment These items were included in the update to the master
plan that the Advisory Panel members “…actively wrote
Plan for water and sewer capacity proactively and edited…” (Hartley, 2003).
Minimize the negative impact of new facilities on In addition to the creation of the Advisory Panel, Gwinnett
neighborhoods and the environment County created a separate Citizen Advisory Board to
oversee responsibilities at the NAWRF, especially proper
Develop alternate water sources operations and meeting effluent limits. This board was
created in response to the concern that lower-standard
Pursue regional opportunities effluent would have detrimental effects on the
Chattahoochee River and Lake Lanier.
Manage water and wastewater demand
“While there were a few common members with the
Provide a high level of service at an optimum cost master planning process Advisory Panel, the Citizen
Advisory Board is in independent group with a distinct
One of the major items of dissent among the regulatory role. It serves as a communication channel between the
agencies, Gwinnett County, and members of “the pub- public and the utility. The Citizen Advisory Board con-
lic” was effluent disposal from the NAWRF. The original trols its own $50,000/year budget. The Citizen Advisory
plant included a pipeline to discharge effluent to the Board has spent the funds on sampling, technical re-
Chattahoochee River; however, fears of low quality ef- view of plans and designs, and other oversight activi-
fluent and recent raw sewage spills and fish kills led many ties” (Hartley, 2003).
groups and individuals to be against discharge to the
river. The second alternative was to discharge effluent The Citizen Advisory Board has been successful in both
to Lake Lanier, which feeds the local water treatment facilitating communications with other citizens, as well
plant, in turn, a form of indirect potable reuse. And al- as being instrumental in ensuring premium operations
though the state did approve discharge into Lake Lanier, and maintenance at the NAWRF. Most recently they
it is illegal in the State of Georgia to perform direct po- succeeded in adding a new resolution to include annual
table reuse (Hartley, 2003). budgeting for the retraining of the operations and main-
tenance staff at the plant (Hartley, 2003).
The Advisory Panel recommended the following items
for water supply (Hartley, 2003): 7.5.7 AWWA Golf Course Reclaimed Water
Market Assessment
Preference for the continued use of Lake Lanier as
a water supply source in the near-, mid-, and long- In 1998, the AWWA Water Reuse Committee commis-
term sioned a study to survey golf course superintendents
regarding their perceptions and experiences using re-
Blended reuse was considered a secondary alter- claimed water. With the increasing need to turn to re-
native in the long-term claimed water for non-domestic uses, the water indus-
try was interested in determining if the existing systems
The group created a second set of recommendations for providing reclaimed water to golf courses were satis-
wastewater (Hartley, 2003): factory or needed improvement so that this information
could be used by providers when developing future re-
Given the quality of treated wastewater effluent from claimed water systems.
the NAWRF, nonpotable reuse should be “pursued
vigorously” through all time periods A survey creation group was formed with members of
the USGA Green Section, certified golf course superin-
Continue to seek conversions from septic tanks to tendents, and a member of the University of Nevada at
public wastewater treatment Las Vega (UNLV) research staff. This group developed a
37-question survey focused primarily on the technical
Discharge into the Chattahoochee River in the near- aspects of water quality issues, irrigation system issues,
term was preferred, with a second option being dis- management issues, provider issues, and the percep-
charge into Lake Lanier tions of golfers, superintendents, and the public.
Increased preferences for blended reuse in reser- The survey was beta tested in 2000 with the AWWA CA/
voirs for the mid- and long-term planning horizons NV Recycled Water Committee and the NWEA user sub-
238
committee of Reuse Nevada to ensure that the time com- The survey responses have come from private courses
mitment and survey content were appropriate. A website (47 percent) and public courses (53 percent). Most of
was built to disseminate the survey, providing a readily the courses (78 percent) were standard 18-hole courses
available place for soliciting input from superintendents and ranged between 660 and 7,200 yards (600 and
across the nation. The website, www.gcrwa.com, was 6,580 meters) in length. About 55 percent of the courses
opened in September of 2000 and the necessary pro- use reclaimed water all or part of the time. The remain-
gramming was completed to allow the survey data to be ing 45 percent of the courses use potable, well, storm,
downloaded to a secure database so that the results could canal, river water, or combinations thereof to irrigate
be evaluated. their courses.
Since January 2003, data has been received from 15 Significant to the intent of the survey, was the response
states and British Columbia with the majority of the sur- regarding the opinions of golfers, nearby residents, and
vey responses coming from Florida, Arizona, and Ne- superintendents to the use of reclaimed water. Nega-
vada. Knowing that the USGA list of effluent-using golf tive comments about reclaimed water appear to be lim-
courses in 1994 numbered 220 and the number in South- ited to about 10 percent of each of the groups, with odors
ern Nevada alone has grown from 5 to 17 since then, it being the only repetitive comment. The overwhelming
is estimated that the number of golf courses in the U.S. majority (90 percent) appears to be very positive and
that use reclaimed water might easily exceed 300 to- supportive of reclaimed water use. Algae, pondweeds,
day. Based on this expected sample population, the most and odors were the 3 most troublesome problems for
significant observation has been the slow response rate superintendents associated with both reclaimed water
from golf course superintendents — only 88 have been irrigation systems and aesthetic ponds.
received. Internet responses as of January 2003 num-
bered 62, while returns by fax or mail number 26, indi- Irrigation quantity and timing was most often influenced
cating that 30 percent of the superintendents either do by turf color, followed by soil sampling and on-site
not have access to the Internet or prefer to respond with weather stations. Total dissolve solids (TDS) is gener-
hard copy. ally claimed to be a large concern with turf irrigation wa-
ter, so it was interesting to find that only 31 percent of
Figure 7-5. Survey Reponses
Yes Survey Responses

No
Did Not Respond
Responses (%)
te r? ter? rty
? S? es
?
es
?
ds
?
se
?
e D ak ak a r
wa wa op eT nl el he cou
ed ed pr th tio tiv ler ur
im im he th a a k o
cla cla nt wi er cor rin ny
re re )o fie
d op de sp o
e e s s wi
th th wi
th ter
us f th yte ati wi a
to )o ph s s
ms
s dw
n ed li ds alo you blem le blem im
e
so h re ro ob ro la
sig s( A ep pr ep ec
de lve
d se v ve v er
se o as a a a s
ur iss rfg
r uh uh uh tou
co d t tu yo yo yo ry
Is tal n Do Do to
(to e ra Do da
D S
lt tol an
eT Sa itm
Th Is
239
the survey respondents claimed to know what the actual

TDS of their water was, yet 59 percent were either satis-
fied or dissatisfied. Satisfied outnumbered the dissatis-
fied by a ratio of 2 to 1. A graphical representation of the
survey responses is presented in Figure 7-5.
7.6 References
Alpha Communications, Inc. 2001 Water Reclamation

Public Opinion Surveys. Researched for: Clark County
Sanitation District. Las Vegas, Nevada.
Curran, T.M. and S.K. Kiss. 1992. “Water Independence

in Cape Coral: An Implementation Update.” In: Proceed-
ings of Urban and Agricultural Water Reuse, Water En-
vironment Federation, Alexandria, Virginia.
Filice, F.V. 1996. “Using Public Opinion Surveys to Mea-

sure Public Acceptance of a Recycled Water Program
– San Francisco, CA.” Water Reuse Conference Pro-
ceedings. AWWA. Denver, Colorado.
Grosh, E.L., R.L. Metcalf, and D.H. Twachtmann. 2002.

“Recognizing Reclaimed Water as a Valuable Resource:
The City of Tampa’s First Residential Reuse Project.”
2002 WateReuse Annual Symposium, Orlando, Florida.
September 8-11, 2002.
Grinnell, Gary K., and Ram G. Janga. 2003. “AWWA

Golf Course Reclaimed Water Market Analysis.” 2003
AWWA Annual Conference Proceedings, Anaheim, Cali-
fornia.
Hall, W.L. and A.R. Rubin. 2002. “Reclaimed Water: A

Public Perception.” WEFTEC 2002, Proceedings of the
75th Annual Conference and Exposition, Chicago, Illinois.
Hartley, Troy W. 2003. Water Reuse: Understanding Pub-

lic Perception and Participation. Alexandria, Virginia: Wa-
ter Environment Federation and IWA Publishing.
Kadvany, John, and Tracy Clinton. 2002. “A Decision Analy-

sis Toolkit for Engineering and Science-Based Stakeholder
Processes.” WEFTEC 2002, Proceedings of the 75th
Annual Conference and Exposition, Chicago, Illinois.
Sheikh, B., J. Kelly and P. MacLaggan 1996. “An Out-

reach Effort Aimed at Increasing Water Recycling in
California.” Water Reuse Conference Proceedings.
AWWA. Denver, Colorado.
240
Chapter 8
Water Reuse Outside the U.S.
The need for alternative water resources, coupled with the planning, technical, and institutional issues may dif
increasingly stringent water quality discharge require fer considerably from industrialized countries.
ments, are the driving forces for developing water reuse
strategies in the world today. Water reuse enables prac 8.1 Main Characteristics of Water
titioners to manipulate the water cycle, thereby creating Reuse in the World
needed alternative water resources and reducing effluent
discharge to the environment. The growing trend is to Increased water shortages and new environmental poli
consider water reuse as an essential component of inte cies and regulations have stimulated significant devel
grated water resources management and sustainable opment in reuse programs in the past 20 years. Accord
development, not only in dry and water deficient areas, ing to the conclusions of various water reuse surveys
but in water abundant regions as well. In areas with high (Lazarova et al., 2001 and Mantovani et al., 2001), the
precipitation where water supply may be costly due to best water reuse projects, in terms of economic viability
extensive transportation and/or pumping, water reuse has and public acceptance, are those that substitute re
become an important economic alternative to developing claimed water in lieu of potable water for use in irriga
new sources of water. tion, environmental restoration, cleaning, toilet flushing,
and industrial uses. The main benefits of using reclaimed
Reuse of wastewater for agricultural irrigation is prac water in these situations are conservation of water re
ticed today in almost all arid areas of the world. Numer sources and pollution reduction.
ous countries have established water resources planning
policies based on maximum reuse of urban wastewater. A project commissioned by the Water Environment Re
In many dry regions, particularly in developing countries search Foundation (WERF), Mantovani et al. (2001) sur
in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, unplanned use of in veyed nonpotable water reclamation planning and man
adequately treated wastewater for irrigation of crops con agement practices worldwide. The study reviewed 65 in
tinues today and is often confused with planned and regu ternational nonpotable water reuse projects to document
lated reuse. This major health concern makes it impera planning and management approaches for agricultural,
tive to governments and the global community to imple urban, and industrial water reuse projects in both advanced
ment proper reuse planning and practices, emphasizing and developing countries in the arid and semi-arid belts
public health and environmental protection, during this around the globe. The survey findings confirmed that in
era of rapid development of wastewater collection and addition to operational performance, sound institutional
treatment. Within the next 2 decades, 60 percent of the arrangements, conservative cost and sales estimates,
world’s population will live in cities. As increasingly am and good project communication are the basis for project
bitious targets for sewage collection are pursued, mas success. By the same token, institutional obstacles, in
sive and growing volumes of wastewater will be disposed adequate valuation of economic benefits, or a lack of public
of without treatment to rivers and natural water bodies. information can delay projects or cause them to fail.
The challenges will be particularly acute in mega-cities
(cities with a population of 10 million or more), over 80 Table 8-1 shows the average volumes of reclaimed water
percent of which will be located in developing countries. produced in several countries, as well as the relative con
tribution of water reuse to the total water demand. Re
This chapter provides an overview and examples of wa cent projections show that in Israel, Australia, and Tuni
ter reuse in countries outside of the U.S., including the sia, the volume of reclaimed water will satisfy 25 percent,
implementation of reuse in developing countries where 11 percent, and 10 percent, respectively, of the total wa
ter demand within the next few years (Lazarova et al.,
241
Table 8-1. Sources of Water in Several Countries
Total Annual Water Withdrawal Annual Reclaimed Water Usage Reclaimed Water as
Country
3 3
Percent of Total
Year Mm MG Year Mm MG
Algeria 1990 4,500 1,188,900 - - - -
Bahrain 1991 239 63,144 1991 15 3,963 6%
Cyprus 1993 211 55,746 1997 23 6,077 11%
Egypt 1993 55,100 14,557,420 2000 700 184,940 1%
Iran 2001 81,000 21,400,200 1999 154 40,687 0.20%
Iraq 1990 42,800 11,307,760 - - - -
Israel 1995 2,000 528,400 1995 200 52,840 10%
Jordan 1993 984 259,973 1997 58 15,324 6%
Kuwait 1994 538 142,140 1997 80 21,136 15%
Kyrgyzstan 1990 11,036 2,915,711 1994 0.14 37 0%
Lebanon 1994 1,293 341,611 1997 2 528 0.20%
Libya 1994 4,600 1,215,320 1999 40 10,568 1%
Morocco 1991 11,045 2,918,089 1994 38 10,040 0.30%
Oman 1991 1,223 323,117 1995 26 6,869 2%
Qatar 1994 285 75,297 1994 25 6,605 9%
Saudi Arabia 1992 17,018 4,496,156 2000 217 57,331 1%
Syria 1993 14,410 3,807,122 2000 370 97,754 3%
Tajikistan 1989 12,600 3,328,920 - - - -
Tunisia 1990 3,075 812,415 1998 28 7,398 1%
Turkey 1992 31,600 8,348,720 2000 50 13,210 0%
Turkmenistan 1989 22,800 6,023,760 - - - -
U. A. Emirates 1995 2,108 556,934 1999 185 48,877 9%
Yemen 1990 2,932 774,634 2000 6 1,585 0%
Sources: Adapted from World Bank, 2001 with updates from Hamdallah, 2000.
Note: (-) indicates that data was not available.
2001). In Jordan, reclaimed water volumes must increase Water scarcity and droughts, particularly in arid
more than 4 times by the year 2010 in order to meet and semi-arid regions. In this case, reclaimed water
demands. By 2012, the volume of reclaimed water in Spain is a vital and drought-proof water source to ensure
will increase by 150 percent. The reclaimed water vol economic and agricultural activities.
ume in Egypt is expected to increase by more than 10
times by the year 2025. A number of countries in the Environmental protection and enhancement in
Middle East are planning significant increases in water combination with wastewater management needs
reuse to meet an ultimate objective of reusing 50 to 70 represent an emerging driver, in a number of industri
percent of the total wastewater volume. alized countries, coastal areas, and tourist regions.
In areas with more stringent wastewater discharge
8.2 Water Reuse Drivers standards, such as in Europe, Australia, and South
Africa, wastewater reuse becomes a competitive
The main drivers for water reuse development worldwide alternative to advanced water treatment from both
are: economic and environmental points of view.
Increasing water demands to sustain industrial and Socio-economic factors such as new regulations,
population growth. This is the most common and health concerns, public policies, and economic in
important driver for dry and water-abundant regions centives are becoming increasingly important to the
in developed, developing, and transitional countries. implementation of water reuse projects. For example,
242
the increase in the cost of potable water will help able to meet needs for domestic, industrial, and agricul
promote the implementation of wastewater reuse. tural use. Based on past experiences in moderately de
veloped countries in arid zones, renewable freshwater
Public health protection is the major driver in de resources of 1,700 m3/capita/year (0.45 mg/capita/year)
veloping countries where lack of access to fresh wa has been proposed as the minimum value at which coun
ter supplies coupled with high market access in ur tries are most likely to begin to experience water stress,
ban and peri-urban areas, drives untreated reuse in which may impede development and harm human health
agriculture. Public health protection and environmen (Earth Trends, 2001). Below 1,000 m3/capita/year (0.26
tal risk mitigation are key components of any reuse mg/capita/year) of renewable freshwater sources, chronic
program under these conditions. water scarcity appears. According to some experts,
below 500 m3/capita/year (0.13 mg/capita/year), countries
8.2.1 Increasing Water Demands experience absolute water stress and the value of
100 m3/capita/year (0.026 mg/capita/year) is the mini-
Population growth, urbanization, and industrial develop mum survival level for domestic and commercial use
ment contribute to water shortages by perpetually push (Falkenmark and Widstrand, 1992 and Lazarova, 2001).
ing up demand. In addition, these same factors increase Projections predict that in 2025, 2/3 of the world’s popu
water pollution, add to potable water treatment costs, lation will be under conditions of moderate to high water
and most likely, have adverse health effects. Urban growth stress and about half of the population will face real con
impacts in developing countries are extremely pressing. straints in their water supply.
Whereas only 1 in 3 mega-cities were located in devel
oping countries in 1950, in the year 2002, 14 of 22 such Population Action International has projected the future
cities were in developing countries. By 2020, more than water stress index for 149 countries and the results in
half the total population of Asia, Africa, and Latin America dicate that 1/3 of these countries will be under water stress
will be living in cities, and all of these cities will need by 2050. Africa and parts of western Asia appear particu
additional water supplies. (See Figure 8-1). larly vulnerable to increasing water scarcity. This data
also shows that a number of Middle Eastern countries
8.2.2 Water Scarcity are already well below the absolute water stress of 500 m3/
capita/year (0.13 mg/capita/year) and by 2050 will reach
The most common approach used to evaluate water avail the minimum survival level of 100 m3/capita/year (0.026
ability is the water stress index, measured as the an mg/capita/year) for domestic and commercial use. In
nual renewable water resources per capita that are avail- addition, numerous nations with adequate water resources
have arid regions where drought and restricted water sup
ply are common (north-western China, western and south
Figure 8-1. World Populations in Cities ern India, large parts of Pakistan and Mexico, the west
ern coasts of the U.S. and South America, and the Medi
terranean region).
A high concentration of population within individual coun

tries also causes water stress. The North China Plain
(surrounding Beijing and within the river basins Hai, Huai,
and Yellow River) contains most of the country’s popu
lation, such that the water availability is only about 5
percent of the world average, while China, as a whole,
has about 25 percent of the world average.
Another important criterion for evaluating water stress is

water withdrawal as a percentage of the annual internal
renewable water resources. Water management becomes
a vital element in a country’s economy when over 20 per
cent of the internal renewable resources are mobilized
(Earth Trends, 2001). This is currently occurring in sev
eral European countries (Figure 8-2a) such as France,
Spain, Italy, Germany, Ukraine, Belgium, the Netherlands,
and Hungary. The Mediterranean region, North Africa,
Morocco, Tunisia, Israel, and Jordan are facing high risks
243
of water scarcity, meaning that in these areas, the major Improving the efficiency of water use, water reclama-
portion of the renewable resources are withdrawn. A num- tion, and reducing distribution losses are the most af-
ber of arid and semi-arid countries meet water demands fordable solutions to relieve water scarcity. For a num-
by seawater desalination or by withdrawals from non-re- ber of countries in the Middle East and North Africa, where
newable deep aquifers with extracted volumes 2 to 30 current fresh water reserves are, or will be, at the sur-
times higher than available renewable resources (Figure vival level, reclaimed wastewater is the only significant,
8-2b).
8-2a. Countries with Chronic Water Stress Using Non-Renewable Resources
8-2b. Countries with Moderate Water Stress
244
low cost alternative resource for agricultural, industrial, ing application of urban water reuse in Europe (Lazarova,
and urban nonpotable purposes. 1999), while replenishment of river flows for recreational
uses is becoming increasingly popular in Spain and Ja
8.2.3 Environmental Protection and pan.
Public Health
There are several advantages to implementing urban re
In spite of the economic and ecological advantages as use versus agricultural reuse:
sociated with wastewater reuse, the key issue remains
public health safety. The reuse of raw wastewater, still Most urban reuse, such as toilet flushing, vehicle
widely practiced in several regions in China, India, Mo washing, stack gas cleaning, and industrial process
rocco, Egypt, Pakistan, Nepal, Vietnam and most of South ing is nonconsumptive; therefore, the water can be
America, leads to enteric diseases, helminthic infections, reused again for subsequent consumptive uses in
and dangerous epidemics. In addition to public health agriculture or industry.
risks, insufficiently treated effluent may also have detri
mental effects on the environment. For example, high The urban markets for water reuse are generally
salinity levels in effluent can lead to a decrease in pro closer to the points of origin of the reclaimed water
ductivity for certain crops and destabilization of the soil than are the agricultural markets.
structure. Another possible adverse effect is groundwater
pollution. In the Mezquital Valley, north of Mexico City, Urban reuse water generally holds a higher value
1,027 mgd (45 m3/s, or 1.15 million acre-feet/year) of than agricultural reuse because it can be metered
untreated wastewater from the capital city of Mexico City and appropriate charges levied.
is used for agricultural irrigation in a 222,400-acre (90,000-
hectare) area, year-round (IWA, 2002). This huge waste Wastewater treatment for reuse may have a lower cost
water irrigation project, believed to be the largest in the than developing new water supply sources, particularly
world, has given rise to inadvertent and massive recharge for low-quality reuse in toilet flushing and similar
of the local aquifers, and unintended indirect potable re nonpotable urban uses. Agricultural irrigation will prob
use of water from that aquifer by a population of 300,000 ably continue to dominate water reuse practices for many
inhabitants. years into the future, especially in developing countries.
However, reclamation projects are not likely to be built
8.3 Water Reuse Applications – Urban to serve agriculture. Over recent years, there has been
and Agriculture increasing interest in indirect potable reuse in a num
ber of industrialized countries (Australia, Belgium,
Agriculture is the largest user of water, accounting for France, Spain, South Africa, Singapore, and the U.S.) for
approximately 80 percent of the global demand. Con water supply augmentation through the replenishment of
sequently, agricultural irrigation is the major water re surface reservoirs, aquifers, and salt intrusion barriers in
use application worldwide. In a number of arid and semi coastal areas.
arid countries - Israel, Jordan, and Tunisia – water reuse
provides the greatest share of irrigation water. Israel is Untreated reuse water is a large and rapidly growing prob
the world’s leader in this area, with over 70 percent of lem practiced in both low- and middle-income countries
collected and treated wastewater reused for agricultural around the world. The International Water Management
purposes (Kanarek and Michail, 1996). Institute (IWMI), based in Colombo, Sri Lanka, and the
International Development Research Centre (IDRC), based
Urban water reuse is developing rapidly, particularly in in Ottawa, Canada held a workshop to discuss the use of
large cities, coastal, and tourist areas. Japan is the untreated reuse water, at which a range of case studies
leader in urban water reuse, with 8 percent of the total were presented from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and
reclaimed water (about 2,113 mgd or 8 millions m3/year) Latin America. At the workshop the Hyderabad Declara
used for urban purposes. The most common urban uses tion on Wastewater Use in Agriculture was adopted.
are for the irrigation of green areas (parks, golf courses,
and sports fields), urban development (waterfalls, foun The conference organizers are preparing an official, peer-
tains, and lakes), road cleaning, car washing, and reviewed publication based on this declaration. As previ
firefighting. Another major type of reuse is on-site water ously mentioned, there are parts of the world where the
reuse within commercial and residential buildings. For wastewater management systems do not allow for the
example, Australia, Canada, Japan, and the United King development of water reuse. In some regions untreated
dom use treated domestic wastewater for toilet flushing. wastewater is improperly used for irrigation, usually ille
Golf course irrigation is reported as the most rapidly grow gally. The declaration recognizes that in situations where
245
wastewater treatment to produce usable reuse water is 8.4 Planning Water Reuse Projects
not available, there are alternatives to improve the man
agement of water reuse. The Hyderabad Declaration on Numerous state-of-the-art technologies enable wastewa-
Wastewater Use in Agriculture is reproduced below. ter to become a complementary and sustainable water
The Hyderabad Declaration on Wastewater Use in Agriculture
14 November 2002, Hyderabad, India
1. Rapid urbanization places immense pressure on the world’s fragile and dwindling fresh water
resources and over-burdened sanitation systems, leading to environmental degradation. We as wa
ter, health, environment, agriculture, and aquaculture researchers and practitioners from 27 interna
tional and national institutions, representing experiences in wastewater management from 18 coun
tries, recognize that:
1.1 Wastewater (raw, diluted or treated) is a resource of increasing global importance,

particularly in urban and peri-urban agriculture.
1.2 With proper management, wastewater use contributes significantly to sustaining livelihoods,
food security and the quality of the environment.
1.3 Without proper management, wastewater use poses serious risks to human health and the
environment
2. We declare that in order to enhance positive outcomes while minimizing the risks of wastewater
use, there exist feasible and sound measures that need to be applied. These measures include:
2.1 Cost-effective and appropriate treatment suited to the end use of wastewater, supplemented
by guidelines and their application
2.2 Where wastewater is insufficiently treated, until treatment becomes feasible:
(a) Development and application of guidelines for untreated wastewater use that safeguard
livelihoods, public health and the environment
(b) Application of appropriate irrigation, agricultural, post-harvest, and public health
practices that limit risks to farming communities, vendors and consumers
(c) Education and awareness programs for all stakeholders, including the public at large, to
disseminate these measures
2.3 Health, agriculture and environmental quality guidelines that are linked and implemented in
a step-wise approach
2.4 Reduction of toxic contaminants in wastewater, at source and by improved management
3. We declare that:
3.1 Knowledge needs should be addressed through research to support the measures outlined above
3.2 Institutional coordination and integration together with increased financial allocations are required
4. Therefore, we strongly urge policy-makers and authorities in the fields of water, agriculture, aquac
ulture, health, environment and urban planning, as well as donors and the private sector to:
Safeguard and strengthen livelihoods and food security, mitigate health and environmental
risks and conserve water resources by confronting the realities of wastewater use in agricul-
ture through the adoption of appropriate policies and the commitment of financial resources
for policy implementation.
246
resource for a number of purposes in both developed Developing countries: greater than 10 percent
and emerging countries, thus allowing utilities to reserve
high quality and often scarce freshwater for domestic The situation becomes critical in a number of African
uses. The development and implementation of water re and Asian countries, where water supply and sanitation
use projects, however, remains difficult due to issues coverage do not exceed 30 percent and 45 percent, re
such as institutional discord, economics, funding, public spectively, including Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia,
health and environmental issues and, in some cases, a Chad, Congo, Ethiopia, Haiti, Laos, Mauritania, and
lack of public acceptance. Rwanda. Despite these numbers, it is important to stress
that more and more countries have effectively achieved
8.4.1 Water Supply and Sanitation total water supply and sanitation coverage, such as An
Coverage dorra, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Canada,
Cyprus, Finland, South Korea, Lebanon, Netherlands,
Despite increasing efforts to improve water supply and New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia,
sanitation coverage in the world during the past 10 years, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Signifi
numerous regions and many large cities still do not have cant strides have also been made in a number of devel
sufficient infrastructure (Table 8-2). According to a 2000 oping countries (Figure 8-3a) and it is expected that
survey (Homsi, 2000), wastewater treatment coverage these figures will improve in several other countries with
remains lower than water supply coverage and still rep water resource problems (Figure 8-3b) due to govern
resents an important constraint to implementing water mental policies and increased investments.
reuse projects:
8.4.2 Technical Issues
Sewage network coverage:
Treatment technology, another key aspect of the plan
Developed countries: 76 percent, except Japan, 54 ning process, varies between planning a reuse project
percent and Portugal, 55 percent in an emerging country and planning a reuse system in
a more industrialized country. In industrialized countries,
Developing countries: 35 percent, except Chile, where stringent control of water quality and operational
greater than 90 percent reliability are the main requirements, modern, high cost
technology may be more beneficial. In developing coun
Wastewater treatment coverage: tries, relatively inexpensive labor and higher capital costs
dictate that a facility, which can be built and operated
Developed countries: 75 percent, except Portugal, with local labor, will be more cost effective than a facility
36 percent utilizing more modern, capital-intensive technology.
Table 8-2. Wastewater Flows, Collection, and Treatment in Selected Countries in 1994 (Mm3/Year)
Generation Rate Collection Treatment Treated, As Treated, As

Country Percent of Percent of
Total Collected
Mm3/yr MG/yr Mm3/yr MG/yr Mm3/yr MG/yr
Cyprus 24 6,341 15 3,963 15 3,963 63% 100%
Egypt 1700 449,140 1138 300,660 950 250,990 55% 83%
Jordan 110 29,062 95 25,099 45 11,889 41% 47%
Morocco 500 132,100 400 105,680 170 44,914 34% 43%
Saudi Arabia 700 184,940 620 163,804 580 153,236 83% 94%
Syria 480 126,816 480 126,816 260 68,692 54% 54%
Tunisia 200 52,840 180 47,556 155 40,951 78% 86%
Turkey 2,000 528,400 1,700 449,140 1,100 290,620 55% 65%
Source: Table created from World Bank Working documents (UNDP, 1998)
247
Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage in Selected Countries
Figure 8-3a. Countries with Total Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage over 80 Percent
Figure 8-3b. Countries with Total Water Supply and Sanitation Coverage Over 50 Percent
Source: Figures for this table were assembled from WorldBank working documents (UNDP, 1998)
248
This section provides an overview of some of the techni veloping countries advocate another strategy of control
cal issues associated with water reuse in developing coun ling health risks by adopting a low technology/low-cost
tries that may differ from those presented in Chapter 2 approach based on the WHO recommendations. A sum
for the U.S. Many of these issues result from the differ mary of select guidelines and mandatory criteria for re
ent technical solutions that are appropriate in a labor- claimed water use in a variety of U.S. states and other
intensive economy as compared with the capital-inten- countries and regions is presented in Table 8-4.
sive economy of industrialized countries. Other differ
ences result from dissimilarities in financial, material, Historically, water reuse standards are based on reuse
and human resources, as well as in existing wastewa for agricultural irrigation. The countries that have adopted
ter collection, treatment, and disposal facilities. the WHO recommendations as the basis for their agricul
tural reuse standards use both fecal coliforms (FC) and
8.4.2.1 Water Quality Requirements helminth eggs as pathogen indicators, respectively, at
1000 FC/100 ml and 1 helminth egg/l for unrestricted irri
Water reuse standards or guidelines vary with the type gation. The WHO recommends more stringent standards
of application, the regional context, and the overall risk for the irrigation of public lawns than for the irrigation of
perception. Depending on the project specifications, crops eaten raw (fecal coliform count at 200 FC/100 ml,
there will be different water quality requirements, treat in addition to the helminth egg standard). Recent work,
ment process requirements, and criteria for operation based on epidemiological and microbiological studies
and reliability. However, the starting point for any water performed in Mexico and Indonesia support the WHO
reuse project for any application is ensuring public health fecal coliform limit of less than 103 FC/100 ml, but rec
and safety. For this reason, microbiological parameters ommends a stricter guideline value of less than 0.1 egg
have received the most attention in water reuse regula of intestinal nematode per liter (Blumenthal et al., 2000).
tions. Since monitoring for all pathogens is not realistic, In the absence of recommendations for particulate mat
specific indicator organisms are monitored to minimize ter, these standards use TSS at concentrations varying
health risks. between 10 and 30 mg/l.
Table 8-3 provides a summary of water quality param WHO recommends stabilization ponds or an equivalent
eters of concern with respect to their significance in water technology to treat wastewater. The guidelines are
reuse systems, as well as approximate ranges of each based on the conclusion that the main health risks as
parameter in raw sewage and reclaimed water. The sociated with reuse in developing countries are associ
treatment of urban wastewater is typically designed to ated with helminthic diseases; therefore, a high degree
meet water quality objectives based on suspended sol of helminth removal is necessary for the safe use of
ids (Total Suspended Solids (TSS) or turbidity), organic wastewater in agriculture and aquaculture. The intesti
content (BOD), biological indicators (total or fecal nal nematodes serve as indicator organisms for all of
coliforms, E.coli, helminth eggs, enteroviruses), nutri the large settleable pathogens. The guidelines indicate
ent levels (nitrogen and phosphorus) and, in some cases, that other pathogens of interest apparently become non
chlorine residual. Additional water quality parameters for viable in long-retention pond systems, implying that all
irrigation include salinity, sodium adsorption ratio, boron helminth eggs and protozoan cysts will be removed to
concentration, heavy metals content, and phytotoxic the same extent. The helminth egg guidelines are in
compounds content. The use of reclaimed municipal water tended to provide a design standard, not an effluent test
for industrial purposes may require effluent limits for dis ing standard.
solved solids, ammonia, disinfection byproducts and other
specific inorganic and organic constituents. The original 1973 WHO recommendations were more
stringent than the 1989 recommendations. With respect
Different countries have developed different approaches to fecal coliforms, the standard rose from 100 FC/100 ml
to protecting public health and the environment, but the to 1000 FC/100 ml. The WHO guidelines are currently
major factor in choosing a regulatory strategy is eco undergoing further revision. A draft guideline proposed
nomics, specifically the cost of treatment and monitor by Bahri and Brissaud (2002) recommends massive re
ing. Most developed countries have established conser visions in the WHO guidelines, making them somewhat
vatively low risk guidelines or standards based on a high more restrictive, while maintaining the objective of
technology/high-cost approach, such as the California affordability for developing countries. For example, in the
standards. However, high standards and high-cost tech draft guidelines, the helminth egg concentration limit is
niques do not always guarantee low risk because insuffi reduced from the current guideline of 1 egg/L to 0.1 egg/
cient operational experience, OM&R costs, and regula L for unrestricted irrigation. The proposed draft guide
tory control can have adverse effects. A number of de lines also cover various options for health protection,
249
Table 8-3. Summary of Water Quality Parameters of Concern for Water Reuse
Treatment Goal in Reclaimed

Parameter Significance for Water Reuse Range in Secondary Effluents
Water
Suspended solids Measures of particles. Can be related to 5 mg/L - 50 mg/L <5 mg SS/L - 30 mg SS/L
microbial contamination. Can interfere with
disinfection. Clogging of irrigation systems.
Turbidity Deposition. 1 NTU - 30 NTU <0.1 NTU - 30 NTU
BOD5 10 mg/L - 30 mg/L <10 mg BOD/L - 45 mg BOD/L

Organic substrate for microbial growth. Can
COD favor bacterial regrowth in distribution systems 50 mg/L -150 mg/L <20 mg COD/L - 90 mg COD/L
and microbial fouling.
TOC 5 mg/L - 20 mg/L <1 mg C/L - 10 mg C/L
7
Total coliforms <10 cfu/100mL -10 cfu/100mL <1 cfu/100mL - 200 cfu/100mL
Fecal coliforms Measure of risk of infection due to potential 6

<1-10 cfu/100mL
3
<1 cfu/100mL - 10 cfu/100mL
presence of pathogens. Can favor biofouling in
Helminth eggs cooling systems. <1/L - 10/L <0.1/L - 5/L
Viruses <1/L - 100/L <1/50L
Specific elements (Cd, Ni, Hg, Zn, etc) are toxic <0.001 mg Hg/L
Heavy metals to plants and maximum concentration limits --- <0.01 mg Cd/L
exist for irrigation <0.1 mg Ni/L - 0.02 mg Ni/L
High salinity and boron (>1mg/L) are harmful for

Inorganics --- >450 mg TDS/L
irrigation
To prevent bacterial regrowth. Excessive

Chlorine residual amount of free chlorine (>0.05) can damage --- 0.5 mg Cl/L - >1 mg Cl/L
some sensitive crops
Nitrogen Fertilizer for irrigation. Can contribute to algal 10 mg N/L - 30 mg N/L <1 mg N - 30mgN/L
growth, corrosion (N-NH4) and scale formation
Phosphorus (P). 0.1 mg P/L - 30 mg P/L <1 mg P/L - 20 mg P/L
Source: Adapted from Lazarova, 2001; Metcalf and Eddy, 1991; Pettygrove and Asano, 1985
such as treatment of wastewater, crop restrictions, ap 1. Effluents of very high quality, suitable for
plication controls, and control of human exposure. The unrestricted irrigation—no barriers required
multi-barrier approach throughout the water cycle is also

considered an important element. WHO wastewater re 2. Effluents of high quality—2 barriers required for irri-
use initiatives are considering 4 categories of reuse: (a) gation
agriculture, (b) aquaculture (shellfisheries), (c) artificial
recharge exclusively for potable supply, and (d) urban use. 3. Oxidation pond effluents—2 to 3 barriers required
for irrigation
The premise is that better health protection can be
achieved by not only implementing stringent water qual 4. Effluents of medium quality—3 barriers required for
ity limits but also by defining other appropriate practices irrigation
that could provide additional barriers for pathogens de
pending on the type of reuse. Such an approach has 5. Effluents of low quality—only specific “no-barrier”
been proposed in the new Israeli standards (Shelef and crops are allowed to be irrigated
Halperin, 2002). In 1999, new standards were issued by
the Israeli Ministry of Health (Palestine Hydrology Group, These standards set a low coliform limit of less than 10
1999), defining 5 qualities of reclaimed water, as follows: E. coli/100 ml for very high quality reclaimed water that
does not require additional barriers (the first quality listed
250
Table 8-4. Summary of Water Recycling Guidelines and Mandatory Standards in the United States
and Other Countries
Fe cal Total He lm inth Chlor ine

BOD5 Tur bidity TSS DO
Country/Re gion Colifor m s coliform s e ggs pH re s idual
(ppm ) (NTU) (ppm ) (%of Sat)
(CFU/100m l) (cfu/100 m l) (#/L) (ppm )
Aus tralia (New South Wales) <1 <2/50 -- >20 <2 -- -- -- --

Arizona <1 -- -- -- 1 -- -- 4.5-9 --
California -- 2.2 -- -- 2 -- -- -- --
Cyprus 50 -- -- 10 -- 10 -- -- --
100 (g) 500 (g) 2 (g)
EC bathing water -- -- -- 80-120 6-9 --
2,000 (m) 10,000 (m) 1 (m)
France <1000 -- <1 -- -- -- -- -- --
25 for any
Florida (m) sample for -- -- 20 -- 5 -- -- 1
75%
Germany (g) 100(g) 500 (g) -- 20 (g) 1-2 (m) 30 80-120 6-9 --
Japan (m) 10 10 -- 10 5 -- -- 6-9 --
2.2 (50%)
Israel -- -- 15 -- 15 0.5 -- 0.5
12(80%)
Italy -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Kuwait
10,000 10 10 1
Crops not eaten raw
-- -- -- -- --
Kuwait
100 10 10 1
Crops eaten raw
Oman
<200 15 15 6-9
11A
-- -- -- -- --
Oman
<1000 20 30 6-9
11B
South Africa 0 (g) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Spain (Canary islands) -- 2.2 -- 10 2 3 -- 6.5-8.4 1
Tex as (m) 75(m) -- -- 5 3 -- -- -- --
Tunisia -- -- <1 30 30 7 6.5-8.5 --
UAE -- <100 -- <10 -- <10 -- -- --
United Kingdom 100 (g) 500 (g) 2 (g)
-- -- -- 80-120 6-9 --
Bathing Water Criteria 2000 (m) 10000 (m) 1 (m)
14 for any
US EPA (g) sample, 0 for -- -- 10 2 -- -- 6-9 1
90 %
200 (g)
WHO (lawn irrigation) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
1000 (m)
Note: (g) signifies that the standard is a guideline and (m) signifies that the standard is a mandatory regulation
Source: Adapted from Cranfield University, 2001. Urban Water Recycling Information Pack, UK
above) and can be used for irrigation of vegetables eaten No-barrier crops are defined in the following categories:
raw. Additional barriers are identified as: (1) industrial crops (such as cotton or fodder); (2) crops
whose harvestable parts are dried in the sun for at least
Physical barriers, such as: buffer zones, plastic 60 days after the last irrigation (including sunflower,
groundcovers and underground drip irrigation wheat, chickpeas intended for cooking); (3) watermelon
for edible seeds or for seeds that are irrigated before
Crops or fruits that are normally treated under high flowering; (4) woody crops or plants with no public con
temperature and/or are eaten only cooked (e.g., tact; and, (5) grass for sale with no public access to the
wheat), as well as those with an inedible peel or shell plot.
(e.g., citrus, banana, nuts)
251
The government of Tasmania, Australia, issued the tenth cesses, can be used in water reuse facilities. Wastewa
draft of its, “Environmental Guidelines for the Use of Re- ter treatment processes, such as stabilization ponds or
cycled Water in Tasmania” (Tasmanian website). These lagooning, infiltration-percolation, soil-aquifer treatment,
guidelines are intended to provide a framework to allow and wetlands, are well adapted to the climate conditions
sustainable water reuse in a manner that is practical and in tropical and subtropical zones. Their relatively low
safe for agriculture, the environment, and the public while OM&R costs and easy upkeep are important advantages
also remaining consistent with industry standards and for developing countries. However, these treatment tech
best environmental practice management (Dettrick and nologies require large land availability, are associated
Gallagher, 2002). Issues of soil sustainability, including with high evaporation losses resulting in high salinity con
permeability hazard, salinity hazard, groundwater protec centrations, and are recommended predominantly for
tion, and crop health, are discussed in the guidelines. A small treatment units, with less than 5000 population
comprehensive health risk management framework is pro equivalents (700 m3/d or 0.2 mgd) (Lazarova et al., 2001).
vided that gives different levels of risk management for
3 quality classes of wastewater including: backflow pre Over the last decade, an increased number of studies
vention, public access and withholding, safety for work conducted in different countries have shown that stabili
ers dealing with reclaimed water, food safety issues, and zation pond systems in series can produce effluent with
grazing animal withholding. The Tasmanian guidelines microbiological water quality suitable for unrestricted
identify 3 categories of reclaimed water: irrigation (WHO guidelines category A, less than 1000
FC/100 ml and less than 1 helminth egg/L) (Lazarova,
z Class A Recycled Water: No restriction on public ac 1999). The hydraulic residence time varies in the range
cess less than 10 cfu /100 ml of 20 to 90 days according to the climate conditions and
the optimal lagoon depth is 1.2 to 1.5 meters. Under op
z Class B Reclaimed Water: Limited restrictions apply timal operating conditions, the disinfection efficiency is
less than 100 cfu /100 ml or less than 1,000 cfu/100 ml 3 to 5 log removal, with maximum values up to 5 to 6 log
depending upon type of application removal for fecal coliforms. A removal rate of 5 to 6 log
of fecal coliforms in stabilization ponds can only be
z Class C Treated Water: Access restricted less than achieved if maturation ponds are provided. Stabilization
10,000 cfu/100 ml ponds operating in Brazil have been shown to provide a
3-log removal of intestinal nematodes (Mara and Silva,
No potable reuse or body contact with reclaimed water is 1986).
addressed in the Tasmanian guidelines because of the
high level and cost of treatment necessary to produce One of the drawbacks of using a stabilization pond sys
the requisite quality reclaimed water. Irrigation of treated tem is the restricted operation flexibility, especially dur
wastewater to riverside land less than 6 miles (10 kilome ing flow and seasonal variations. Activated sludge treat
ters) upstream of a town water supply intake is generally ment used in conjunction with tertiary treatment ponds
not permitted. has proven to be a reliable and efficient method for dis
infection with the elimination of fecal coliform, viruses,
8.4.2.2 Treatment Requirements and helminth eggs. The ponds also provide the required
storage capacity for irrigation. High evaporation rates,
Wastewater treatment is the most effective way to re particularly in dry and windy zones, are the major dis
duce the health, environmental, and other risks associ advantage of this treatment technology.
ated with the use of reclaimed water. Choosing the most
appropriate treatment technology for water reuse is a The increased use of constructed wetlands in develop
complex procedure that must take into consideration ing countries has been slow, despite favorable climate
various criteria, including technical and regulatory re conditions. Adequate wetlands systems designs for tropi
quirements, as well as social, political, and economic cal and subtropical zones have not yet been developed.
considerations specific to the local conditions. It is im Several field studies performed in constructed wetlands
portant to stress that economic and financial constraints for secondary treatment show that the pathogen reduc
have to be taken into account in countries where re tion (2 to 3 log reduction of fecal coliforms and coliph
claimed water is a vital water resource for sustainable ages) is not sufficient to satisfy the WHO water quality
development. guidelines for irrigation.
Depending on water quality objectives, plant capacity, Larger cities with existing sewage systems are the most
land availability, and climate conditions, extensive low- promising locations for implementing water reuse. Con
tech technologies, also known as non-conventional pro ventional treatment is likely to be the treatment of choice
252
because of limited land availability, the high cost of land, reuse might occur. The institutions with a stake in water
the considerable transmission distance to reach the reuse include those responsible for water supply, waste
treatment site, and lack of public acceptability, particu water management, water resources management, envi
larly as city growth nears the vicinity of the treatment ronmental protection, and public health and, in many
sites. cases, agriculture. Furthermore, these agencies may
have responsibilities at local, regional and national lev
With the increased concern for public health, choosing els. More often than not, there is a wide chasm between
a disinfection technology is recognized as one of the these agencies. Acknowledging that the ideal situation
critical steps in developing a water reclamation system. rarely exists, and that there is an institutional barrier to
The treatment quality upstream of disinfection has a developing a new water reuse initiative, overcoming bar
great impact on the doses required for a given disinfec riers and forgoing the necessary links among agencies
tion level. Therefore, if a stringent regulation must be should be the first step in any planning effort. An admin
met, disinfection alone cannot make up for inefficient istrative reorganization may be necessary to guarantee
upstream treatment and often must be coupled with ter the development of water reuse into a general water man
tiary filtration or other advanced treatment processes. agement group. Examples of such changes include those
The growing use of ultraviolet (UV) technologies for dis taking place in developing countries like Tunisia, Mo
infection in wastewater reuse plants worldwide is largely rocco, and Egypt. Ideally, it would be most desirable to
attributed to low costs, as well as the absence of toxic have just one agency in charge of the entire water cycle
byproducts. One drawback to using UV disinfection in in a given hydrologic basin.
reuse systems is the lack of disinfection residual, which
is mandatory in distribution tanks, holding tanks, and A critically important “partner” in a safe and successful
reservoirs. water reuse program is the independent regulatory
agency with oversight and enforcement responsibility
In addition to appropriate treatment technology, adequate over all the partners involved in water reuse. It would
monitoring is also important. Although not always fea be a conflict of interest for either the water supplier or
sible in developing countries, on-line, real-time moni the wastewater manager to have this regulatory role;
toring is preferable to sampling and laboratory analysis therefore, the most logical “home” for the regulatory func
where the results arrive too late to take corrective ac tion is with the agency charged with protection of public
tion. A simple and useful measurement of water quality health and/or the environment.
for reclaimed water is turbidity. Experience can relate
turbidity to other parameters of interest but, more im 8.4.4 Legal Issues
portantly, a sudden increase in turbidity beyond the op
erating standard provides a warning that corrective ac There are 2 basic types of legal issues relevant to water
tion is required. For example, practice in the U.S. often reuse: (1) water rights and water allocation; and (2) the
requires that, should the turbidity exceed 2 NTU for more protection of public health and environmental quality.
than 10 minutes, the reclaimed water be diverted to stor Other legal issues may also be relevant in specific cir
age to be retreated. cumstances.
Treatment cost is an extremely important consideration 8.4.4.1 Water Rights and Water Allocation
everywhere, but especially where financial resources
are very limited. A recent analysis by Lazarova (2001) Diverting existing wastewater flows to a treatment facil
summarized the unit costs of various treatment levels ity will, at a minimum, change the point at which the flow
for a 40,000 population-equivalent size treatment plant. is discharged to surface waters, and may change the
The results are shown in Table 8-5. The treatment costs amount of water available to current users further down
for producing reclaimed water are highly influenced by stream. A water reuse project may completely deprive
local constraints, such as the price of the building site, existing users of their current supply if reclaimed water
distance between the production site and the consum is sold to new users (e.g., industrial facilities) or allo
ers, and whether or not there is a need to install a dual cated to new uses (e.g., municipal use).
distribution system or retrofit an existing system.
Traditional practice and customary law in most develop
8.4.3 Institutional Issues ing countries recognizes that a water user acquires vested
rights. Changing the amount of water that is available to
Planned water reuse is best accomplished through the a current user may entitle the user to some type of rem
collaboration of at least 2—and often more—institutions. edy, including monetary compensation or a supplemen
Without collaboration, only unplanned or incidental water tal water supply. A proposed water reuse project needs
253
Table 8-5. Life-Cycle Cost of Typical Treatment Systems for a 40,000 Population- Equivalent Flow of
Wastewater
Unit Cost1
Treatment System
per m3 per AF per MG
Stabilization Ponds (Land Cost not Included) $0.18 $222.00 $0.68
Activated Sludge (Secondary) $0.34 $420.00 $1.29
Activated Sludge + Filtration + UV Irradiation $0.42 $518.00 $1.59
Additional Cost of Full Tertiary Treatment (Title 22) $0.24 $296.00 $0.91
Additional Cost of Disinfection $0.07 $86.00 $0.26
Lime Pretreatment + Reverse Osmosis
$0.75 $926.00 $2.84
(After secondary treatment)
Microfiltration + Reverse Osmosis
$0.54 $667.00 $2.04
(After secondary treatment)
1
Cost in U.S. Dollars
Adapted from Lazarova, 2001
to consider the impact on current patterns of water use Controls on access to the wastewater collection sys
and determine what remedies, if any, are available to or tem and controls to prevent cross-connections be
should be created for current users if the project inter tween the distribution networks for drinking water
feres with their water uses. and reclaimed water
8.4.4.2 Public Health and Environmental Regulations concerning sludge disposal and facility
Protection location
The use of reclaimed water for agricultural irrigation and Mechanisms for enforcing all of the above regulations,
various municipal uses may result in human exposure including monitoring requirements, authority to con
to pathogens or chemicals, creating potential public duct inspections, and authority to assess penalties
health problems. Water reclamation and reuse, and the for violations
disposal of sludge from wastewater treatment, may also
have adverse effects on environmental quality if not A number of other legal issues discussed in Chapter 5
managed properly. are also relevant to developing countries.
Planning for water reuse projects should include the 8.4.5 Economic and Financial Issues
development and implementation of regulations that will
prevent or mitigate public health and environmental prob The economic justification for water reuse depends prin
lems. Such regulations include: cipally on either offsetting the costs of developing addi
tional water sources or on reducing the overall waste
A permit system for authorizing wastewater discharges water treatment costs. The full cost of developing and
managing the water supply, wastewater management
Water quality standards for reclaimed water that are system, and water reuse system needs to be understood
appropriate for various uses in order to conduct a rigorous economic analysis.
Water quality standards for river discharge when wa The economic rationale for water reuse outside of the
ter reuse is seasonal, intermittent, or less than the U.S. does not differ much from that set out in Chapter 6.
effluent rate of the wastewater treatment facility Benefits associated with water reuse include savings from
not having to develop new water sources, reduced treat
Controls that will reduce human exposure, such as ment requirements, and the economic value of the re
restrictions on the uses of reclaimed water claimed water.
254
The enterprises responsible for water supply services in Only 35 percent of the population is connected to sewer
developing countries function with varying degrees of systems and only part of the collected sewage under
success, but increasingly, the utility companies recover goes appropriate treatment (Pujol and Carnabucci,
their operating costs through user fees. User fees and/or 2000). Large-scale reuse of untreated wastewater has
public funds also have to fund the wastewater treatment been occurring since the beginning of the 20th century
system, if provided by the same institution. in densely populated areas in the western regions of
the country for the purpose of agricultural irrigation. Ar
8.5 Examples of Water Reuse gentina requires that water reuse practices must be in
Programs Outside the U.S. compliance with the WHO standards, but in some re
gions, raw wastewater or minimally treated effluent are
Based on a review of water reuse projects outside the still being used for irrigation (Kotlik, 1998). In the large
U.S., it can be concluded that the number of countries cities, there are plans to use trickling filters and activated
investigating and implementing water reuse has in sludge systems. In the arid areas, conventional stabili
creased over the past decade. Hence, water reuse is zation ponds are used for treatment for agricultural re
growing steadily not only in water-deficient areas (Medi use.
terranean region, Middle East, Latin America), but also
in highly populated countries in temperate regions (Ja Driven by water scarcity, the largest water reuse system
pan, Australia, Canada, North China, Belgium, England, in Argentina is located in the arid region of Mendoza, in
Germany). The suitability of water reuse, especially in the western part of the country near the Andes. Over
arid and semi-arid regions, is now nearly universally 160,000 m3/d (42.3 mgd) of urban wastewater (1 million
recognized. However, the societal ability and willingness inhabitants, 100 Mm3/year or 26,400 mg/year) is treated
to make the necessary investment for infrastructure by one of the largest lagooning systems in the world at
improvement depends on local circumstances and var the Campo Espejo wastewater treatment plant with a to
ies considerably from country to country. tal area of 290 hectares (643 acres) to meet the WHO
standards for unrestricted irrigation by means of faculta
The principal reuse application remains agricultural irri tive stabilization ponds (Kotlik, 1998). Reuse water in
gation, especially in developing countries. Urban, this region is a vital water resource, enabling the irriga
nonpotable reuse, such as reuse for, landscape irriga tion of over 3,640 hectares (8,995 acres) of forests, vine
tion, road cleaning, car washing, toilet flushing, and river yards, olives, alfalfa, fruit trees and other crops. Improved
flow augmentation, is developing rapidly in high density water reuse practices are under development to avoid
urban and tourist areas. Indirect potable reuse and the contamination of aquifers, including establishment of spe
use of reclaimed water for industrial purposes have also cial areas for restricted crops and restrictions in the choice
been receiving increased attention in several industrial of irrigation technologies. An extension of this water re
ized countries. The only existing example of direct po use system is planned in the northern region of the
table water reuse remains the Windhoek plant in Mendoza City Basin, where the treated effluent from the
Namibia. There have not been any adverse public health Paramillo wastewater treatment plant (100,000 m3/d or
impacts reported during the 34 years of the plant’s suc 26.4 mgd, series of stabilization ponds) is diluted with
cessful operation. the flow from the Mendoza River and used for irrigation
of a 20,000-hectare (49,420-acre) oasis.
This section illustrates the applications of water reuse in
several industrialized countries as well as several devel 8.5.2 Australia
oping countries where an interest in reuse is just begin
ning. This inventory is intended to be illustrative rather 8.5.2.1 Aurora, Australia
than exhaustive. For the convenience of the reader, the
case studies have been listed in alphabetical order. Aurora is a proposed new 650-hectare development to
be located in the outer northern suburbs of Melbourne,
8.5.1 Argentina Australia. The development is intended to showcase
sustainable development principles. A key feature will
Argentina is characterized by various climatic zones: be water conservation, with a plan to utilize recycled
tropical, humid climate in the northeastern region with treated wastewater for nonpotable use. The work under
large rivers such as the Parana and Uruguay; mild and taken so far indicates that with water reuse and demand
humid climate in the central flat region of the pampas management combined, there is the potential to reduce
with few sources of surface water; and arid and semi the demand on the potable reticulated system in the or
arid regions in the west and south. der of 70 percent. Construction was planned to commence
in 2003, with an estimated 15 years before full develop
255
ment, at which stage, around 9,000 dwellings will exist, wastewater will be collected and treated, and then stored
housing a population of 25,000. in groundwater aquifers for reuse. Houses have both a
potable water main connection and a reclaimed water
Reuse systems completed to date convey wastewater connection. The reclaimed water will be used for toilet
to a decentralized treatment plant and distribute it via a flushing, garden irrigation, and car washing. Public open
separate, metered pipe system back to each dwelling. space will also be irrigated with reclaimed water.
At present, Melbourne’s typical separate water systems
include potable water supply, wastewater collection, and Stormwater is to be harvested from the 620-hectare (1,532-
storm water collection. The recycled pipes will there acre) development site plus an equivalent area of adjoin
fore represent a fourth system that will be plumbed for ing industrial land. An established wetland adjacent to
irrigation and toilet flushing. the development will augment the proposed system and
provide additional storage for the harvested stormwater.
Wastewater will need to be treated to Class A standards Prior to entering the wetland system, the stormwater will
to meet the state’s Environmental Protection Agency be screened through a combination of gross pollution
and Department of Health requirements for the intended traps and wetland basins.
use. Class A standards require treated effluent to
achieve the following standards: 8.5.2.3 Virginia Project, South Australia
10 E.coli per 100 ml The Virginia pipeline project was built to transport over
20,000 megaliters (5,284 million gallons) of reclaimed
1 helminth per liter water (approximately 20 percent of the wastewater pro
duced in the Adelaide area) from the Bolivar Treatment
1 protozoa per 50 liters Plant just north of Adelaide to the Virginia area. The
secondary effluent from the treatment plant receives
1 virus per 50 liters further treatment after transmission in a Dissolved Air
Flotation Filtration (DAFF) system which improves the
It is envisioned that the project will utilize surface stor water quality to less than 10 E. Coli/ 100 ml – the Austra
age; however, aquifer recharge and recovery is being lian standard for irrigation for crops eaten raw. The re
investigated as another mechanism for water balanc claimed water system serves over 220 irrigators in the
ing. Despite these 2 potential methods, it is anticipated Virginia area - the majority of the customers are horticul
that there will be continual need for the facility to dis tural farmers who produce root and salad crops, brassi
charge treated effluent into the local waterway during times cas, wine grapes, and olives.
of high rainfall. An environmental impact study is being
conducted for both the groundwater and stream to deter The project was developed in response to 3 problems:
mine adequate water quality standards for discharge to nutrients in the secondary effluent were damaging an
occur. At this stage, it appears that discharge targets for environmentally sensitive gulf, irrigators were experienc
the stream releases will need to meet Class A standards, ing declining yields, and there was an increase in salinity
as well as to keep phosphorus and nitrogen below 0.1 in underground aquifers. The reduced water resource
mg/L and 1 mg/L, respectively. was expected to cause reduced production and employ
ment in an area which already faced high unemployment.
8.5.2.2 Mawson Lakes, Australia Even though there were 3 drivers for a reclaimed water
system, the project remained in the planning stages until
Mawson Lakes will be an innovative urban development 4 major issues were overcome: (1) project financing; (2)
12 kilometers (7.5 miles) north of Adelaide, designed to a public-private partnership; (3) water quality standards;
integrate evolutionary strategies into economic, social, and, (4) marketing. Multiple stakeholders including gov
and environmental activities. The development is designed ernment, the water authority, regulatory authorities, po
for 8,000 to 9,000 residents in 3,200 dwellings, and in tential customers, and the project developer further com
cludes a town center and commercial properties. plicated the project; however, the common goal to see
the project proceed overcame the individual interests of
A key component of the development is to create a re each party.
claimed water supply system that will reduce household
potable demand by at least 50 percent by providing re The project has been operating since 2000 and the own
claimed storm water and wastewater for outdoor, domes ers are considering extending the system to meet de
tic, and municipal irrigation. Stormwater run-off from roofs, mand that was unable to be met in the original develop
paths, roads, and the general area, as well as treated ment. There have been no public health concerns and
256
Table 8-6. Summary of Australian Reuse Projects
Annual Volume
Project W ater Quality 1 Application Comment
(ML) (MG)
Built to overcome problems from nutrient

Unrestricted irrigation of horticultural discharges and declining aquifer. Largest
Virginia 22,000 5,815 A
crops including salad crops operating reuse project in Australia – completed
in 2000.
Major engineering, financial, economic, and

Class A water similar to Virgina project in
South East social impact study recently completed
100,000+ 26,420 A and C major horticultural region. Class C to
Queensland estimating using all of Brisbane’s wastewater –
cotton and cereal farms.
however, smaller project more likely to proceed.
Coal washing and electricity generator Operating in a location where labor relations are
Hunter Water Up to 3,000 Up to 795 C and B
cooling. typically difficult.
Stage 1 - horticulture , public spaces, and

Eastern Irrigation golf courses. Stage 1 water sold and project is under
10,000 2,645 C
Scheme Stage 2 - distribution to homes for construction.
household gardens and toilet flushing.
Barwon Water
Up to 1,000 Up to 265 Agricultural and industrial uses. Feasibility study only.
Sewer Mining
Application to vines for producing System in operation. Annualized water price

McClaren Vale Up to 8,000 Up to 2,115 Class C
premium quality wine grapes. exceeds that for potable water.
Reclaimed water distributed to 15,000

households using a dual distribution
Rouse Hill Up to 1,500 Up to 400 Class A System in operation.
system. Future plans to serve a total of
35,000 households.
50 kilometers (31 miles) Reclaimed water

Varying standards
Georges River 15,000 to 3,960 to pipeline to serve existing potable water Environmental Impact Statement completed and
based on
Program 30,000 7,925 customers and new residential projected is to begin construction in 2004.
application
developments
While exact numbers are not known there is

Applications include wine grapes, sugar,
likely to be more than 50 schemes and individual
pasture and fodder, including that for
All Class B or applications in Australia. Most state
Other projects --- --- dairy cattle, water cooling for an oil
Class A governments and water authorities have policies
refinery, golf course and recreational area
on reuse and devote efforts to developing new
watering, tree lots, and dust suppression.
applications.
1
Class A Water = less than 10 E. Coli/100 ml
Class B Water = less than 100 E. Coli/100 ml
Class C Water = less than 1,000 E. Coli/100 ml
there is continuous monitoring for environmental impacts plants. Other industries with high rates of water utiliza
such as accession of irrigation water to the water table tion or industries located in areas of dropping water tables
and build-up of salts in the soil profile. Table 8-6 gives or high summer water demand are also moving more to
a summary of this project and other reuse projects in wards water reuse. The elimination of wastewater dis
Australia. charge in environmentally sensitive areas is another in
centive for developing water reuse projects.
8.5.3 Belgium
There is one indirect potable reuse project that has proven
Belgium has one of the lowest water availabilities among to be a cost-effective and environmentally beneficial so
the countries of the European Union (EU) with 2000 m3/ lution. The system not only provides additional water,
capita/year (528,300 gallons/capita/year). Only 45 per but also provides a saltwater intrusion barrier. At the
cent of the sewage is currently treated, with plans to Wulpen wastewater treatment plant, up to 2.5 Mm3/year
treat almost all wastewater by 2006. The amount of (660 mg/year) of urban effluent is treated by microfiltration
wastewater reuse remains limited; nevertheless, using (MF) and reverse-osmosis (RO), stored for 1 to 2 months
reclaimed water is becoming increasingly attractive to in an aquifer, and then used for water supply augmenta
industries such as power plants and food processing tion.
257
There was another attempt to reuse 10,000 to 24,000 m3/ In a country with a population of 173 million in 2001, a
d (2.6 to 6.3 mgd) of wastewater to recharge an aquifer in full 60 percent of the population was not connected to
Heist; however, infiltration could not be achieved through sewer systems. Only 34 percent of the wastewater flow
the soil due to low hydraulic conductivity. The only other collected that was collected was treated in 1996. The
option was to do direct reuse. In the end, the project situation has a clearly visible negative impact on the en
team decided to use surface water as the raw water vironmental quality of many of Brazil’s urban river basins
source. and public health. However, it is important to underline
that Brazil achieved substantial progress with regard to
A third possible water reuse project is still under study. It the coverage of water supply and sanitation services over
involves the treatment of about 8,000 m3/d (2.1 mgd) of the past 3 decades, much of this effort being the fruit of
effluent from the Waregem wastewater treatment plant the Government’s National Water and Sanitation Program.
for direct reuse in the neighboring textile industry. The In urban areas, access to potable water supplies rose
technical feasibility study has shown that the required from 50 percent in 1968 to 91 percent in 1997. Sewage
effluent quality can be obtained through the use of a com coverage increased from 35 percent to 43 percent in the
bined process of sand filtration, MF, and RO. same period. The sewage coverage in urban areas was
significantly improved to 85 percent in 2000.
8.5.4 Brazil
There are a great deal of wastewater reuse planning and
Brazil is one of the countries with the most abundant actions being implemented in Brazil. Most of them are
water resources (8 percent of the world’s fresh water, associated with industrial projects: resource recovery,
equivalent to about 40,000 m3/capita/year or 10.5 mg/ demand management, and minimization of effluent dis
capita/year in 2000). In spite of this, 80 percent of the charge. Municipalities recognize the benefits of nonpo
fresh water in Brazil is in the Amazon basin in the north table urban reuse and have started to make plans to op
ern region of the country, leaving 20 percent bounded to timize the use of local water resources. On the other
the area that concentrates about 65 percent of the popu hand, unplanned (and sometimes unconscious) agricul
lation (southeastern, southern, and central-western Bra tural reuse is performed in many parts of the country,
zil) as seen in Table 8-7. Despite having a great poten particularly for the irrigation of fodder crops and veg
tial of water, water conflicts occur in some areas of the etables. Water is diverted from heavily polluted sources
country. For example, the Upper Tietê River Basin has to be applied to crops without treatment or adequate ag
about 18 million inhabitants and is one of the world’s ronomic measures. It is expected that the new regula
largest industrial complex, yet the region only has a tions to be placed into law by the Agency will regulate
specific water availability of only 179 m3/capita/year the practice nationwide, promoting at the same time, the
(47,290 mg/capita/year). On the other hand, irrigation is implementation of public health and environmental safe
growing steadily in the country, reaching a consumptive guards to new projects.
use of about 69 percent at national level.
8.5.4.1 São Paulo, Brazil
The Law nº 9,433 of January, 1997, established the Na
tional Water Resources Policy and created the National Metropolitan São Paulo, a city with 18 million people and
Water Resources Management System. Since then, the a very large industrial complex, is located in a plateau in
country has had a legal instrument to ensure future gen the heads of the Tietê River. A small amount of local
erations the availability of water in adequate conditions. water availability has forced the region to survive on the
In July, 2000, the Law nº 9,984 created the National Wa importation of water resources from neighboring basins.
ter Agency, linked to the Ministry of the Environment, Two sources of water have been considered for reuse:
but with administrative and financial autonomy. Among municipal wastewater (which contains a significant
several other attributions, the Agency will supervise, amount of industrial effluents) and the volumes retained
control, and evaluate the actions and activities resulting in flood control reservoirs. The available volumes for re
from compliance with the federal legislation; grant, by use and the corresponding quality of the treated efflu
means of licensing, the right to use water resources in ents are shown in Table 8-8.
bodies of water that are in the Union domain; encourage
and support initiatives to institute River Basin Commit Three potential types of water reuse applications have
tees; and collect, distribute, and apply revenues obtained been identified.
by billing for the use of water resources in the Union
domain, etc. Industrial use, for cooling towers, boiler feed water,
process water in metallurgic and mechanical indus
tries, floor washing, and irrigation of green spaces
258
Table 8-7. Water Demand and Water Availability per Region in the Year 2000
Specific W ater Specific W ater Specific W ater Specific W ater

Dem and
Region Inhabitants Dem and Demand Availability Availability
(% of Available)
(m 3/capita/yr) (gal/capita/yr) (m 3/capita/yr) (mg/capita/yr)
North 12,900,704 204 53,890 513,102 135.5 0.04%
Northeast 47,741,711 302 79,780 4,009 1.1 7.53%
Southeast 72,412,411 436 115,180 4,868 1.3 8.96%
South 25,107,616 716 189,150 15,907 4.2 4.50%
Central West 11,636,728 355 93,780 69,477 18.4 0.51%
Brazil 169,799.17 414 109,370 40,000 10.6 1.03%
Table 8-8. Effluent Flow Rate from Wastewater Treatment Plants in Metropolitan Sao Paulo
Design Flow Treated Flow a

WWTP
(Mm3/day) (mgd) (Mm3/day) (mgd)
ABC 0.26 68.47 0.13 35.38
Barueri 0.82 216.83 0.57 151.78
Parque Novo Mundo 0.22 57.06 0.13 33.32
São Miguel 0.13 34.24 0.05 13.69
Suzano 0.13 34.24 0.07 18.94
Total Flow 1.6 410.84 0.96 253.12
a
data from operational data, March 2002
Restricted urban use, for toilet and urinal flushing, water reuse project is in development to serve the uses
vehicle, floor and street washing, decorative water listed in Table 8-9.
features such as fountains, reflecting pools and wa
terfalls, cleaning sewer and flood galleries, prepara The second phase of the reuse project will include addi
tion of concrete and soil compaction, irrigation of tional treatment units to provide effluents with conditions
sports fields, parks, and gardens to allow for artificial aquifer recharge in the vicinity of the
airport. Column testing is being conducted to design re
Unrestricted urban use, for irrigation of green ar charge basins and to define the level of pollutant removal
eas where public access is restricted, as well as, on the unsaturated layer.
irrigation of industrial and fodder crops and pastures.
8.5.5 Chile
8.5.4.2 São Paulo International Airport, Brazil
Water resources in Chile are abundant (61,007 m3/capita/
The São Paulo International Airport of Guarulhos has 2 year or 16.1 mg/capita/year), with a strong prevalence of
terminals, each one handling about 7 million passengers surface water with inhomogeneous geographical distri
per year. Terminal 3 will serve an additional 16 million bution. In 1997, water supply and sewage coverage were
passengers per year, to reach the saturation level of about comparable to those in Europe, with over 99 percent in
30 million passengers per year by 2030. An additional urban areas and 90 percent in rural areas (Homsi, 2000).
water demand, in the order of 3,000 m3/d (792,500 gal- Moreover, 90.8 percent of rural settlements are equipped
lons/d) will produce a total wastewater flow of 6,400 m3/ with water supply systems. Wastewater treatment cov
d (1.7 mgd). Groundwater is the sole source of water, erage is lower, at about 20 percent, with strong govern
and due to excessive pumping, the aquifer is recessing, mental efforts for coverage to more than double that ca
increasing the potential for ground subsidence. A waste pacity in the near future. Consequently, the driving fac
259
tor for water reuse at a national level, and in particular in approximately 35 percent of municipal wastewater re
large cities such as Santiago de Chile, is pollution con ceived treatment before discharge. Wastewater sector
trol. investment is rising dramatically; in 1999 the annual ex
penditure rose to over 12 billion RMB ($1.5 billion), an 8
Wastewater reuse has been practiced for years near the fold increase from 1996.
large cities. In the past, 70 to 80 percent of Santiago’s
raw wastewater has been collected into an open drain Taiyuan, a city of 2 million people and the capital of the
age canal and then distributed for irrigation. The irri Shanxi Province, is located approximately 400 kilome
gated area immediately outside the city provided almost ters (249 miles) southwest of Beijing on the Fen River, a
all the salad vegetables and low-growing fruits to the tributary to the Yellow River. The city stretches for 29
population of Santiago, having a large negative impact on kilometers (18 miles) within the narrow valley of the Fen
public health. In order to improve this situation and imple River, where water availability is limited, sporadic, and
ment sound water reuse practices, plans have been made greatly affected by high sediment loads from the Great
to treat all the wastewater from greater Santiago in 3 large Loess Plateau. Terracing for agriculture and destruction
and 13 smaller sewage treatment plants. The first large of natural ground cover on this plateau create large dust
facility, in operation since November 2001, El Trebol, storms as well as limitations on water retention during
has an average capacity of 380,000 m3/d (100 mgd). An major rainstorms.
other treatment plant, La Farfana, will have a capacity of
760,000 m3/d or 200 mgd when completed. Five smaller Under the $2 billion Yellow River Diversion Project
sewage treatment works are also in operation, all using (YRDP), partially funded by the World Bank, water is
activated sludge processes for treatment. Treatment fa being conveyed 200 kilometers (125 miles) by tunnels
cilities constructed before the 1980s mainly used stabili and aqueducts from a reservoir on the Yellow River and
zation ponds for treatment. pumped to a head of 600 meters (1,970 feet) into the Fen
River, upstream from Taiyuan. Previously, the ground
8.5.6 China water aquifer beneath the city supplied much of the do
mestic demand, as well as the large industrial self-sup-
Water reuse in China primarily occurs when rivers down plied water demands of the steel, coal, and chemical
stream from cities are used for irrigation. Most pollution industries in the city. Industries have made considerable
is produced in the industrialized cities; therefore, pollu progress in water reuse, with 85 percent of industrial water
tion control was first aimed at industries. Over the last demand achieved through internal treatment and reuse
10 years, increasing attention has been paid to munici of process water. The chemical industry has built an ad
pal wastewater treatment. In 2001, there were 452 waste vanced centralized treatment facility to provide an addi
water treatment plants, of which approximately 307 pro tional source for industrial water reuse as well as 2 large
vided secondary or higher treatment. These plants served power plants that reuse all effluent in slurry pipelines to
all or parts of 200 cities of the 667 cities in China. The ash disposal reservoirs.
total volume of wastewater generated was 42.8 billion m3
(11,300 billion gallons), of which industry generated 20.1 Taiyuan is implementing an environmental master plan,
billion m3 (5,300 billion gallons) (47 percent) and non under which 7 enhanced secondary wastewater treatment
industrial (domestic, commercial, and institutional) plants will be built (or existing plants upgraded and ex
sources generated 22.8 billion m3 (53 percent). In 2001, panded) to treat about 900,000 m3/d (238 mgd) by 2010.
Table 8-9. Water Reuse at the Sao Paulo International Airport
Flow
Use 3
(m /day) (gal/day)
Toilets and Urinals in Terminal 3 2,175 574,575
Cooling Towers (Air Conditioning) 480 126,800
Airplane Washing 50 13,200
Floor Washing 15 3,960
Irrigation 10 2,640
Total Flow 2,730 721,200
260
Approximately 500,000 m3/d (132 mgd) of effluent from eas in hotels, gardens, parks, golf courses and other
these plants will be reused via groundwater recharge from urban uses. A reclaimed water supply of about 10 Mm3/d
the Fen River ponds. The ponds were built as an urban (2,640 mgd) is conservatively estimated to be available
amenity under a subsidized public works program to pro for agricultural irrigation.
vide work for the unemployed during a period of economic
restructuring and plant closures. The Fen River ponds The provisional water reuse standards in Cyprus are
stretch nearly 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) along the river, for stricter than the WHO guidelines. The disinfection level
a total volume of 2 million m3 (528 mg), and occupy about required for urban uses with unrestricted public access
half the width of the riverbed. Inflatable dams and flood is 50 FC/100 ml (80 percent of the time, with a maximum
gates on the slope of the Fen River allow floods in ex value of 100 FC/100 ml). For other uses with restricted
cess of the 2-year flood flow to be passed through to the access and for irrigation of food crops; the standard is
ponds. The course alluvium of the river bottom under the 200 FC/100 ml (maximum 1000 FC/100 ml), while for
ponds is expected to allow sufficient recharge to meet irrigation of fodder and industrial crops, the guideline
industrial demands through the existing self-supplied wells. values are 1000 and 3000 FC/100 ml, respectively.
Groundwater levels have been dropping rapidly, and 8.5.8 Egypt

groundwater quality has deteriorated in the upper aquifer
from the buildup of nitrates from untreated municipal waste Approximately 96 percent of Egypt is desert; rains are
water, as well as salinity in the concentrated wastes in rare, even in winter, and occur only in the north. In addi
industrial wastewater after extensive recycling. As a re tion, oases and wells are limited and cannot accommo
sult, water reuse from the aquifer recharge system will date water needs in the regions where they exist. Egypt
be primarily for nonpotable, industrial process water. relies heavily on the Nile River, which supplies essen
tially all of the country’s water.
In order to prevent a large buildup of salinity in the ground
water, a portion of the effluent from the municipal waste Presently, wastewater production is estimated at 4,930
water treatment plants will be discharged into the Fen million m3/year (1.3 mg/year). There are 121 municipal
River. However, downstream irrigation demands greatly wastewater treatment plants operating in Egypt treat
exceed the available stream flow, and eventually Taiyuan ing 1,640 million m3/year (0.43 mg/year). A total of 42,000
may face restrictions on consumptive use to re-estab- hectares (104,000 acres) are irrigated with treated waste
lish stream flow in the lower portions of the Yellow River. water or blended water. Since 1900, wastewater has been
Currently the Yellow River runs dry seasonally over the used to cultivate orchards in a sandy soil area at El-
last 300 kilometers (186 miles) of its length, which is Gabal El-Asfar village, near Cairo. This area has gradu
detrimental to major cities and agricultural areas in the ally increased to about 1,000 hectares (2,500 acres). The
densely developed water-scarce North China Plain. most readily available and economic source of water
suitable for reuse is the wastewater effluent from Greater
8.5.7 Cyprus Cairo, Alexandria, and other major cities.
Cyprus is a mediterranean island with a population of No reuse guidelines have yet been adopted in Egypt, but
700,000 and a vigorous tourism industry. The country is the 1984 martial law regulation prohibits the use of efflu
facing 2 major obstacles in its continued development: ent for irrigating crops, unless treated to the required stan
(1) a growing scarcity of water resources in the semi-arid dards for agricultural drainage water. The irrigation of
regions of the country and, (2) degradation of water at its vegetables eaten raw with treated wastewater, regard
beaches. The government has recognized that a water less of its quality level, is also forbidden. As a result, a
reuse program would address both problems. In addition, USAID-funded project is developing new codes for safe
it is expected that reclaimed water will provide a reliable use of reclaimed water for irrigation of crops with a focus
alternative resource for irrigation, which draws 80 percent on those that cannot be contaminated, such as wood
of the total water demand (300 Mm3/year or 79,250 mg/ trees, palm trees, citrus, pomegranates, castor beans,
year). olives, and field crops, such as lupins and beans. How
ever, despite this code development, no adequate plan
The 25 Mm3/year (6,600 mg/year) of wastewater gener ning, monitoring, and control measures are being taken,
ated by the main cities will be collected and used for and, because of this, spreading of Schistomiasis is quite
irrigation after tertiary treatment (Papadopoulos, 1995). common.
Since transmission costs will be high, most of the re
claimed water, about 55 to 60 percent, will most likely be
used for amenity purposes such irrigation of greens ar
261
8.5.9 France There are plans to reuse 100 percent of the wastewater
flow in the near future.
France’s water resources availability is 3,047 m3/capita/
year (0.8 mg/capita/year) (Earth Trends 2001), and there The country’s regulatory framework (Circular n° 51 of July
fore, is considered to be self-sufficient. However, an un 22, 1991, of the Ministry of Health) is based on the WHO
even distribution of hydraulic resources and increasing guidelines (1989). But France’s regulations are more strin
global water demand have led to seasonal deficits in parts gent having additional requirements concerning irrigation
of the country. The average water consumption has in management, timing, distance and other measures for
creased by 21 percent in the past 10 years. The agricul preventing health risks related to human exposure and
tural sector has experienced the greatest increase of water negative environmental impacts (i.e. the potential con
use, 42 percent, mainly due to an increase in land irriga tamination of groundwater). New water reuse guidelines
tion. Water consumption has also increased in resort ar are under preparation with the introduction of some new
eas where water is needed to irrigate golf courses and microbiological indicators for unrestricted irrigation (i.e.
landscape areas. The industrial sector is the only sector Salmonella, Taenia eggs), as well as more stringent op
that has seen a decrease in water consumption, due to erational restrictions.
increasing efforts to reuse industrial effluents and use
more water-efficient technologies. Recently, there has 8.5.10 Greece
been a reduction in domestic water consumption.
Greece has a severe water imbalance, particularly in the
France has been practicing nonpotable water reclama summer months, due to low precipitation and increased
tion since the 19th century. Its oldest projects are the demands for irrigation and water use. Water demand in
Achères water reclamation plant (near Paris) and the Greece has increased tremendously over the past 50
Reims plant. The main drivers for water reuse in France years (Tchobanoglous and Angelakis, 1996). Despite ad
are to: (1) compensate for water deficiencies, (2) improve equate precipitation, water shortages are often experi
public health, (3) to protect the environment, and (4) elimi enced due to temporal and regional variations in precipi
nate contamination in recreational and shellfish farming tation, the increased water demand during the summer
areas along the Atlantic coast. The majority of water re months, and the difficulty of transporting water through
use projects are found in the islands and in coastal areas the mountainous terrain. As a result, the integration of
in the southern part of the country. water reuse into the water resources management is be
coming a very important issue.
Numerous cases of unplanned indirect potable reuse ex
ist in France, where surface water, diluted with wastewa In 2000, almost 60 percent of the population was con
ter, is used for potable water supply. An example is nected to 270 wastewater treatment plants, with a total
Aubergenville, in the Paris region, where the Seine River, capacity of 1.30 Mm3/d (345 mgd). An analysis of treated
which is 25 percent wastewater effluent, is treated and domestic wastewater distribution of showed that more
used to recharge the drinking water aquifer. than 83 percent of wastewater effluent is produced in
regions with a deficient water balance (Tchobanoglous
Clermont Ferrand is a large agricultural reuse project that and Angelakis, 1996). This indicates that water reuse in
was implemented in 1999 as a response to water short these areas would satisfy a real water demand. Another
ages and economic concerns. The wastewater treatment important factor driving the use of reclaimed water is that
facility consists of an activated sludge process and matu 88 percent of the wastewater effluents are located at a
ration ponds for disinfection. Over 10,000 m3/d (2.6 mgd) distance of less than 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) from farm
are used to irrigate 750 hectares (1,850 acres) of maize. land needing irrigation water; therefore, the additional cost
for irrigation with reclaimed water would be relatively low.
One of the first examples in Europe of integrated water
management with water reuse is on Noirmoutier Island. According to Tsagarakis et al. (2000), over 15 wastewa
The lack of water resources, the 10-fold increase in tour ter treatment plants are planning to reuse their effluents
ist population during the summer, and the intensive agri for agricultural irrigation. The major water reuse projects
cultural activities required water reuse. Wastewater treat being planned or constructed are listed in Table 8-10.
ment on the island is achieved through 2 treatment plants Unplanned reuse still occurs in some regions, where
with a total capacity of 6,100 m3/d (1.6 mgd). The plants wastewater is discharged to intermittent rivers and, after
have activated sludge systems followed by maturation infiltration, is pumped through adjacent wells by farmers.
ponds for storage and disinfection. Thirty percent of the
treated wastewater (0.33 Mm3/year) is used for the irriga Guidelines for water reuse are under consideration by
tion of 500 hectares (1,235 acres) of vegetable crops. the Ministry of Environment and Public Works (Angelakis
262
Table 8-10. Major Reuse Projects
Capacity
Plant Name 3 Uses
m /day mgd
Levadia 3,500 0.925 Irrigation of cotton
Amfisa 400 0.106 Olive tree irrigation
Palecastro 280 0.74 Storage, olive tree Irrigation
Chalkida 13,000 3.434 Landscape and Forestry irrigation
Karistos 1,450 0.383 Landscape and Forestry irrigation
Ierisos 1,200 0.317 Landscape and Forestry irrigation
Agios Konstantinos 200 0.053 Landscape and Forestry irrigation
Kentarchos 100 0.026 Landscape and Forestry irrigation
et al., 2000). Six water reuse categories are being con (4,500 mgd), of which 72 percent was collected and only
sidered: nonpotable urban, agriculture, aquaculture, in 24 percent was ever treated. These conditions cause a
dustrial, environmental, and groundwater recharge. The high number of waterborne diseases in the country (more
criteria are more stringent requirements than the WHO than 30 million life years according to the World Bank).
guidelines. Secondary effluent quality criteria are used
for discharging purposes (No E1b/221/65 Health Ar The capital city of Delhi is one illustration of failing ser
rangement Action) and are independent of the disposal, vice infrastructure and deteriorating environment. The
reclamation, and reuse effort. growing population in Delhi has led to an increase in
the volume of wastewater, yet the current treatment
8.5.11 India capacity is only about 1.3 Mm3/d (3,400 mgd) – which is
only 73 percent of the wastewater generated. Another
India is the second most populous country of the world, example is Mumbai, where 2.3 Mm3/d (608 mgd) of raw
with a current population of over 1 billion that is pro sewage is discharged into the Arabian Sea. However,
jected to increase to 1.5 billion by 2050 (Worldwatch there have been some attempts at rectifying these situa
Institute, 1999). Almost 30 percent of the population lives tions. The large, $300 million, Bombay Sewage Disposal
in urban mega-cities, in particular, in the 7 giant con Project was approved in 1995 with the financial support
glomerates of Mumbai (formerly Bombay) (12.57 million), of the World Bank. Other efforts have been made in the
Calcutta (Kolkata) (10.92 million), Delhi (8.38 million), Calcutta metropolitan area, where 13 sewage treatment
Chennai (formerly Madras) (5.36 million), Bangalore (4.09 plants have been constructed with a total capacity of
million), Hyderabad (6 million), and Ahmedabad (3 mil 386,000 m3/d (102 mgd) using either activated sludge
lion). Fast depletion of groundwater reserves, coupled processes, trickling filters, or oxidation ponds. In addi
with India’s severe water pollution, have put India in a tion, the Ganges River program is to include treatment
challenging position to supply adequate amounts of wa facilities for 6 cities in Uttar Pradesh that will incorporate
ter to their growing population. In 2000, India’s total re reuse for agriculture and forestry.
newable water resources were estimated at 1,244 m3/
capita/year (328,630 gallons/capita/year) (Earth Trends, In 1985, over 73,000 hectares (180,000 acres) of land
2001) and it was estimated that 40 percent of India’s were irrigated with wastewater on at least 200 sewage
water resources were being withdrawn, with the majority farms. There has been a dramatic increase in waste
of that volume (92 percent), used for agricultural irriga water volumes discharged and used for agricultural irri
tion. gation in India. With its current population, Hyderabad
can supply wastewater to irrigate an estimated 40,000
As a result of the fast-growing urban population, service hectares (99,000 acres). The law prohibits irrigation of
infrastructure is insufficient to ensure public health. In salad vegetables with wastewater, yet the prohibited
fact, about 15 percent of the urban population does not practice is widespread and government agencies report
have access to safe drinking water and about 50 percent edly do not actively enforce regulations governing reuse.
is not serviced by sanitary sewers. In 1997, the total Furthermore, in many states there is no microbiological
volume of wastewater generated in India was 17 Mm3/d standard and hence no parameter to control the level of
263
treatment. Enteric diseases, anemia, and gastrointesti million acre-feet per year), and projected to increase to
nal illnesses are high among sewage farm workers. Con 5,900 Mm3/year (4.8 million acre-feet per year) by 2021.
sumers of salad and vegetable crops are also at risk. [Agricultural return flows and industrial wastewaters are
not included in these figures.] These immense volumes
8.5.11.1 Hyderabad, India are now largely disposed of at the point of generation,
through cesspits, without treatment. If collected, prop
Hyderabad, the capital city of Andhra Pradesh, is the erly treated, distributed, and safely utilized, these vol
fifth largest and the fastest growing city in India with 6 umes of water could go a long way toward meeting the
million inhabitants (2001). The city produces over 700,000 burgeoning demands for agricultural and industrial water
m3 (185 mg) of wastewater per day, of which less then 4 demand of the nation. Planned water reuse projects cur
percent receives secondary treatment. The remaining 95 rently produce 154 Mm3/year (125,000 acre-feet per year)
percent of the wastewater is disposed, untreated in the of reclaimed water.
Musi River. The Musi River is the main source of irrigation
water for over 40,000 hectares (98,840 acres) of agricul In fact, recently, the government of Iran approved a rec
tural land. Agriculture is the sole livelihood of over 40,000 ommendation to establish and implement programs for,
farming families living within a 50-kilometer (31-mile) ra among other water-related initiatives, comprehensive rec
dius of Hyderabad. lamation and use of non-conventional water resources—
such as reclaimed water. The public also accepts water
Downstream of Hyderabad, the Musi River water is di reclamation and reuse as a sensible way to maximize
verted through a system of weirs into irrigation canals the use of a limited resource. In the past, effluent was
(see photo) that were originally designed to retain water used primarily to fertilize the soil, but now wastewater
for the dry season after the monsoon rain. Farming com effluent is increasingly used for improving water use effi
munities along the Musi River experience negative and ciency, surface and groundwater pollution prevention, and
positive impacts from the discharge of wastewater into to compensate for a shortage of irrigation water. Other
the river. Perceived negative impacts include an increase driving forces for water reuse include expansion of
in reported fever cases, skin rash, joint aches, and stom greenbelts, soil erosion prevention by growing plants and
ach problems. Positive impacts include savings in chemi improving soil quality, and control of the desertification
cal fertilizer application and larger crops as a result of a process.
year-round availability of water, which without the addi
tion of wastewater, would have been confined to the
monsoon season. The main crops grown are fodder, rice,
and bananas, as well as different varieties of spinach
and other vegetables. Data reported that water samples
taken out of the Musi River, 40 kilometers (25 miles)
downstream of Hyderabad, have normal river water qual
ity parameter readings including a gradual reduction in
BOD, COD, and coliform. The coliform counts reported
were within the WHO guidelines set for unrestricted irri
gation.
8.5.12 Iran
Iran is one of the largest countries in the Middle East,

with an area of more than 165 million hectares (407 Hyderabad, India – wastewater being diverted over weir
million acres) and a population of over 60 million into irrigation canals. Source: International Water Man-
(Shanehsaz et al., 2001). The average annual precipi agement Institute
tation over the country is less than 250 mm (10 inches).
Distribution of rainfall in Iran is not uniform, with some Iranian farmers generally consider wastewater an accept
very urbanized areas receiving even less than the av able water resource for irrigation. There are studies in
erage annual precipitation. Iran examining the use of treated effluent for irrigation
water in the suburban farms, mainly for fodder crops such
In 1994, the volume of municipal wastewater generated as corn, millet, and alfalfa. Systematic studies have
in all urban and rural areas of the country (potentially shown that there is a significant decrease in water use
reclaimable as a water resource if a collection system and fertilizer consumption due to nutrients in the efflu
were in place) was estimated to be 3,100 Mm3/year (2.5 ent.
264
At present, there is no national standard for the reuse of water crisis, with repetitive droughts between 1996 and
treated wastewater. The only existing wastewater code 2002, Israel turned to water conservation and alternative
in Iran is the “Effluent Discharge Standard” developed by water resources including the most widely practiced form
the Department of the Environment in 1994. This stan of water reuse, reclaiming municipal water from medium
dard determines the allowable effluent discharges to sur and large cities for irrigation of agricultural crops.
face waters, cesspits, and agricultural irrigation; however,
the standard does not provide any criteria for the use of In several water reuse projects in Israel, deep, surface
reclaimed water for industrial use, fisheries, or recreational reservoirs are used to store effluent during the winter
activities. Microbiological criteria in this standard are in season and the water is then used during the summer
adequate for the purposes of water reclamation and re irrigation season. There are approximately 200 of these
use; therefore, reliable international standards, such as reservoirs in operation throughout the country with a to
those developed by the WHO and by the EPA, are cur tal storage capacity of 150 Mm3 (40,000 mg). Most of
rently used to regulate water reuse. The responsibility these reservoirs also serve as surface water storage and
and authority for water reuse is scattered and fragmented, additional treatment. The oldest, and by far the largest
as it is in many other parts of the world. Institutions re reuse project, is the Dan Region Project, which incorpo
sponsible for the management of various aspects of wa rates soil-aquifer treatment (SAT) and storage in a ground
ter, wastewater, water reclamation and reuse in Iran are water aquifer.
the Ministry of the Energy, Ministry of Jihad and Agricul
ture, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Ministry Water reuse represents approximately 10 percent of the
of Industries and Mines, and the Department of the Envi total national water supply and almost 20 percent of the
ronment. total water supply for irrigation. Nearly 70 percent of the
municipal wastewater collected is treated and reused for
Despite governmental edicts prohibiting the use of un
treated wastewater in irrigation and agriculture, there
are still some places in Iran where the farmers use raw
wastewater, due to a shortage of fresh water supplies.
Unplanned use of wastewater is observed in cities with
no sanitary sewage systems and no wastewater treat
ment plants. The government, at all management levels,
has struggled to maximize the benefits of reuse and is
working to accomplish this by giving appropriate priori
ties to water use in various sectors, and by encouraging
wastewater reclamation and reuse through allocation of
the necessary financial resources. Considering that waste
water treatment and water reclamation are relatively new
in Iran, 2 of the most important approaches used by the
government are economical incentives and management Pumps transfer water from the withdrawal wells to irriga-
tools. Operational permits are issued for the use of sur tion zones in the Negev Desert, Israel. Photo courtesy of
face water or groundwater, municipal distribution networks, Bahman Sheikh
and the continuance of previously issued permits. These
permits are now conditioned with requirements for imple irrigation. As a result of this nationwide effort, Israel cur
mentation of sewage systems and wastewater treatment rently supports its increasing population, industrial growth,
plants. Until such systems are implemented, entities that and intensive irrigation demand with a water supply of
consume water are required to pay penalties in propor less than 400 m3/capita/year (105,700 gallons/capita/
tion to their discharge volumes and based on established year), while the benchmark value for water stress is avail
tariffs. A percentage of the income from the collected able renewable water resources of 1700m3/capita/year
penalties is channeled to the Department of Energy to (449,000 gallons/capita/year). Israel’s objective is to treat
fund water conservation and wastewater treatment con and reuse most of its wastewater by 2010 (400 Mm3 or
struction projects. 106,000 mg per year, 20 percent of the country’s total
water resources). Most of the reclaimed water would be
8.5.13 Israel used for the irrigation of crops and animal fodder in ac
cordance with the regulations put forth by the Ministry of
The acute shortage of fresh water throughout most of Health.
Israel prompted the development of a nationwide inte
grated water management system. As a result of the
265
The 2 largest reuse projects are the Dan Region Recla The reuse of untreated wastewater in Italy has been prac
mation Scheme and the Kishon Scheme. The Kishon ticed since the beginning of the 20th century. Among the
facilities treat 32 Mm3/year (8,450 mg/year) of wastewa oldest and noted cases is the “marcite”, where water from
ter from the Haifa metropolitan area using a conventional the Vettabia River, which has a high content of industrial
activated sludge system. After treatment, the reclaimed and urban raw wastewater, is used for irrigation. How
water is conveyed to the Yiszre’el Valley, approximately ever, this practice has been decreasing due to poor wa
30 kilometers (18.6 miles) east of Haifa, where it is ter quality. The only negative impact reported is an in
blended with local waste and stormwater and then stored stance where a high concentration of boron damaged very
in a 12-Mm3 (3,170-mg) reservoir for summer irrigation of sensitive crops, such as citrus.
15,000 hectares (37,000 acres) of cotton and other non-
edible crops. The Dan Region reuse system serves the The present lack of water resources and the growing de
Tel Aviv metropolitan area of approximately 1.7 million mand for domestic, industrial, and agricultural consump
inhabitants. The facilities include a 120-Mm 3/year tion has prompted research into non-conventional sup
(31,700-mg/year) mechanical biological plant (Soreq plies. Reclaimed water is beginning to be considered a
wastewater treatment plant). After biological treatment, cost competitive source, playing an increasingly impor
the wastewater is discharged to aquifer recharge basins tant role in water resource management. A survey of Ital
and stored in the aquifer. The reclaimed water is then ian treatment plants estimated the total treated effluent
pumped from recovery wells and conveyed to irrigation flow to be 2400 Mm3/year (634,000 mg/year), all esti
areas on the southern coastal plain and the northern mated to be potential reuse water. The medium to large
Negev area (see photo). Some areas only receive auxil plants in Italy treat approximately 60 percent of the ur
iary irrigation of 4,000 to 8,000 m3/hectares/year (0.4 to ban wastewater flow and can produce reclaimed water to
0.8 mg/acres/year); while more intensely irrigated areas an adequate quality at a reasonable cost.
use 10,000 to 20,000 m3/hectares/year (1.1 to 2.2 mg/
acres/year). Currently, reuse water is used mainly for agricultural irri
gation of over 4,000 hectares (9,800 acres) of land. How
There are 3 other significant reuse projects in the Jeezrael ever, the controlled reuse of municipal wastewater in ag
Valley (8 Mm3/year or 2,100 mg/year), Gedera (1.5 Mm3/ riculture is not yet developed in most Italian regions be
year or 400 mg/year), and Getaot Kibbutz (0.14 Mm3/ cause of stringent legislation, which ignores the findings
year or 37 mg/year). All 3 of these reuse projects pro of recent research works and experiences of uncontrolled
duce reclaimed water for the irrigation of over 40,000 reuse in Southern Italy. One of the largest reuse projects
hectares (98,840 acres) of agricultural lands. was implemented in Emilia Romagna where over 1,250
m3/d (0.3 mgd) of treated effluent from the towns of
8.5.14 Italy Castiglione, Cesena, Casenatico, Cervia, and Gatteo are
used for irrigation of more than 400 hectares (980 acres).
Like most Mediterranean regions, southern Italy (particu
larly Sicily, Sardinia, and Puglia) suffers from water short According to a recent survey (Barbagallo et al., 2001),
age and lack of quality water due to recurrent droughts 16 new water reuse projects for irrigation purposes have
(Barbagallo et al., 2001). In addition, wastewater dis been selected for implementation in water-scarce regions.
charge into rivers or the sea has lead to significant envi In Sicily, where uncontrolled wastewater reuse is very
ronmental problems and eutrophication. Available water common, several new reuse systems have been planned,
resources are estimated to be 2,700 m3/capita/year using seasonal storage reservoirs. In Grammichele, about
(713,260 gallons/capita/year), with a water volume of about 1,500 m3/d (0.4 mgd) of reclaimed water will be used for
155 billion m3 (41,000 billion gallons). According to the the irrigation of citrus orchards. Recently, 2 other projects
recent estimates, the potential water resources in Italy have been authorized and financed on Palermo and Gela,
are less than 50 billion m3 (13,200 billion gallons) when where reuse water will be used for irrigation of several
considering the actual hydraulic infrastructures with rela thousand hectares.
tively low water availability of about 928 m3/capita/year
(245,150 gallons/capita/year). Another industrial reuse project is at the Turin sewage
treatment plant, which treats 500,000 m3/d (132 mgd)
The deficient and unreliable supply of irrigation water, with nitrogen and phosphorus removal. Approximately 8
besides reducing production most years, has strongly percent of the effluent will undergo tertiary treatment,
limited irrigation development. Forecasts for irrigation filtration and chlorination, for agricultural and industrial
water demand show steady increases in many areas, reuse.
not only in southern Italy and the islands.
266
8.5.15 Japan 8.5.16 Jordan
Because of the country’s density and limited water re Jordan has very limited renewable water resources of
sources, water reclamation and reuse programs are not only 102 m3/capita/year (26,950 gallons/capita/year)
new to Japan. Only 40 percent of Japan’s total popula (World Water Resources, 2000-2001), which is basically
tion (including the rural population) is sewered; how at the survival level (see Section 8.2.1). As a result,
ever, by 1995, 89.6 percent of cities larger than 50,000 mobilization of non-conventional water resources is one
people were sewered, and 72 percent of the inhabit of the most important measures that have been proposed
ants of these cities were served with a sewage collec to meet the increasing water demand of the growing popu
tion system. Therefore, buildings being retrofitted for lation (3.6 percent/year, 6.5 million expected in 2010).
flush toilets and the construction of new buildings offer
excellent opportunities for reuse. Initially, the country’s Over 63 percent of the Jordanian population is connected
reuse program provided reclaimed water to multi-fam- to sewage systems. Seventeen wastewater treatment
ily, commercial, and school buildings, with a reclama plants are in operation, with an overall capacity of 82
tion plant treating all of the wastewater for use in toilet- Mm3/year (21,700 mg/year). The largest facilities (greater
flushing and other incidental nonpotable purposes. Later, than 4,000 m3/d or 1.1 mgd) are As-Samra, Baqa’s, Wadi
municipal treatment works and reclaimed water systems Arab, Irbid, and Madaba. Stabilization ponds and acti
were used together, as part of a dual system, providing vated sludge processes are the most common treatment
more effective and economical treatment than individual processes in addition to a few trickling filter facilities.
reclamation facilities.
More than 70 Mm3 (57,000 acre-feet or 18,500 mg) of
In 1998, reclaimed water use in Japan was 130 Mm3/ Jordan’s reclaimed water, around 10 percent of the total
year (94 mgd), according to Ogoshi et al. (2000) with water supply, is either directly or indirectly reused each
distribution as shown in Table 8-11. At that time, about year. By the year 2020, the expected available volume
40 percent of the reclaimed water was being distributed
in dual systems. Of this more than 1/3 was being used
for toilet flushing, and about 15 percent each for urban
irrigation and cleansing. A wide variety of buildings were
fitted for reclaimed water use, with schools and office
buildings being most numerous. In Tokyo, the use of
reclaimed water is mandated in all new buildings larger in
floor area than 30,000 m2 (300,000 ft2).
Japan offers a very good reuse model for cities in devel

oping countries because its historical usage is directly
related to meeting urban water needs rather than only
Wadi Musa secondary treatment plant and storage ponds
agricultural irrigation requirements. In addition, the
serving communities in the vicinity of Petra, Jordan. Photo
country’s reclaimed water quality requirements are dif
courtesy of Bahman Sheikh
ferent from those in the U.S., as they are more stringent
for coliform counts for unrestricted use, while less re
strictive for other applications. of treated wastewater is estimated to be 265 Mm3/year
(70,000 mg/year), which is about 25 percent of the total
Examples of large area water reclamation systems in water available for irrigation. To date, the majority of the
Japan can be found in Chiba Prefecture Kobe City, and reuse has been unplanned and indirect, where the re
Fukuoka City. Outside the city limits of each of these claimed water is discharged to the environment and, af
urban areas, streams have been augmented, parks and ter mixing with natural surface water supplies and fresh
agricultural areas have been irrigated, and greenbelts water supplies, used for agriculture downstream, prima
established with reclaimed water (Ogoshi et al., 2000). rily in parts of the Jordan Valley. The direct use of re
The price of reclaimed water in these cities ranges from claimed water in the immediate vicinity or adjacent to
$0.83/m3 for residential use to $2.99/m3 for business and the wastewater treatment plants is generally under the
other uses. This compares with a potable water price jurisdiction of the Water Authority of Jordan (WAJ), which
range of $1.08 to $3.99/m3. is the entity that plans, builds, owns, operates, and main
tains the plants. The majority of these sites are pilot
projects with some research and limited commercial vi
ability. A few direct water reuse operations, such as the
267
Table 8-11. Uses of Reclaimed Water in Japan
Use Pe rce nt Mm 3/ye a r m g/ye a r

Environmental Water 54% 63.9 16,882.4
Agricultural Irrigation 13% 15.9 4,200.8
Snow Melting 13% 15.3 4,042.3
Industrial Water 11% 12.6 3,328.9
Cleansing Water 9% 11.2 2,959.0
Source: Oqoshi et al., 2000.
date palm plantations receiving reclaimed water from the by desalination. About 90 percent of the urban popula
Aqaba wastewater treatment plant, are separate and vi tion is connected to a central sewage system.
able enterprises.
According to Table 8-12, irrigation accounts for approxi
In recent years, with an increasing population and indus mately 60 percent of Kuwait’s water use, while approxi
trialization, planned water reuse is being viewed as an mately 37 percent is withdrawn for domestic use. Irriga
important component of maximizing Jordan’s scarce tion water is primarily supplied from groundwater (61
water resources. As a result, the government of Jordan, percent) and reclaimed water (34 percent).
with support from USAID, has been examining water re
use and its application in the integrated management of In 1994, the total volume of collected wastewater was
Jordan’s water resources, particularly to alleviate the de 119 Mm3/year (31,400 mg/year), 103 Mm3/year (27,200
mand on fresh water. The Water Resource Policy Sup mg/year) of which was treated. The 3 main municipal
port activity includes policy support and broad-based treatment plants are Ardhiya, Reqqa, and Jahra, with a
stakeholder participation on water reuse, specifically in total capacity of more than 303,000 m3/d (80 mgd). Ter
the Amman-Zarqa Basin (McCornick et al., 2002). To tiary treatment – activated sludge, filtration, and chlorine
further promote the commercial viability of direct water disinfection – is provided. And while Kuwait has been
reuse, the government of Jordan, with support from practicing water reclamation and reuse for over 20 years
USAID, also revisited the existing water reuse standards as a means of extending its limited natural water supply,
(Sheikh, 2001). Senior international water reuse and stan only about 10 percent of treated effluent is reused.
dards experts were consulted in coordination with gov
ernment, agriculture, industry, and technical representa While the use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation
tives, whose participation helped develop an apprecia is growing in urban areas, the main reuse application is
tion of the constraints and concerns faced by all parties agricultural irrigation (4,470 hectares or 11,046 acres in
with respect to reclaimed water use. Jordan is now imple 1997), representing 25 percent of the total irrigated area.
menting a program that will demonstrate that direct water Reclaimed water is only allowed for the irrigation of veg
reuse is reliable, commercially viable, socially accept etables eaten cooked (potatoes and cauliflower), indus
able, environmentally sustainable, and safe. The program trial crops, forage crops (alfalfa and barley), and irriga
is focusing on 3 sites in Jordan including: Wadi Musa tion of highway landscapes. Table 8-13 details the efflu
(see photo), Aqaba, and Jordan University of Science ent quality standards established by the Ministry of Pub
and Technology, each of which is at a different stage of lic Works for water reuse.
development in wastewater treatment and reuse.
The percentage of reclaimed water used for irrigation in
8.5.17 Kuwait Kuwait is relatively high; nevertheless, groundwater sup
plies used for irrigation are being stressed through ex
With a population estimated at about 2 million, most of cessive pumping. The result is increasing salinity of irri
Kuwait can be considered urban. The country is arid, gation water. Irrigated lands are also experiencing salin
with average annual rainfall less than 12.5 cm (5 inches). ization due to evaporation. In response to these irriga
With no surface sources, water is drawn from groundwa tion concerns, Kuwait signed a forward-looking, 30-year,
ter at the rate of about 2270 m3/d (0.6 mgd) for producing build-operate-transfer (BOT) concession contract in May
bottled water and for adding minerals to desalinized sea 2002 for the financing, design, construction, and opera
water from the Persian Gulf. Most water needs are met tion of a 375,000-m3/d (99-mgd) wastewater treatment
268
and reclamation plant. The plant, due to commence op timated to be 14.7 Mm3/d (3,880 mgd), of which 25 per
eration in 2005, is located at Sulaibiya, near one of the cent are currently treated prior to discharge.
most productive agricultural areas of Kuwait. Product
water from the Sulaibiya plant must meet the conces Towns and cities across Mexico generate wastewater
sion contract requirements presented in Table 8-14. that is reused in agriculture (Scott et al, 2000). The gov
ernment has mandated treatment and wastewater qual
The product water from this plant will be very high quality ity standards that are set by the type of receiving wa
and will allow Kuwait several choices for end use includ ters. One of the major examples of agricultural reuse is
ing unrestricted irrigation and replenishment of irrigation Mexico City. Almost all collected raw wastewater (45 to
groundwater supplies. The Sulaibiya plant will achieve 300 m3/s dry and wet flows, respectively, or 11,900 to
the high quality product water through the application of 79,250 gallons/s), is reused for irrigation of over 85,000
advanced treatment processes – biological nitrogen and hectares (210,000 acres) of various crops (Jiménez,
phosphorus removal, followed by ultrafiltration and re- 2001). Of the total wastewater generated, 4.25 m3/s
verse-osmosis treatment. (367,000 m3/d or 97 mgd) is reused for urban uses (filling
recreational lakes, irrigating green areas, car washing,
8.5.18 Mexico 3.2 m3/s (845 gallons/s) is used for filling a part of a dry
lake called Texcoco, and for other local uses, and 45 m3/
Like other Latin American countries, Mexico faces a major s (12,000 gallons/s) is transported 65 kilometers (40 miles)
challenge in terms of providing drinking water, sewage to the Mezquital Valley for irrigation. The reuse of this
connection, and wastewater treatment, due to the need wastewater for irrigation represents an opportunity for the
to strengthen and expand its economic and social devel development of one of the most productive irrigation dis
opment. Therefore, efforts to reuse water for different tricts in the country; however, health problems also are
purposes are extremely important to solving the increas also a result from this practice.
ing water shortage and environmental problems. Mexico
has 314 catchment areas with an average water avail Although the necessity to treat wastewater is obvious,
ability of 4,136 m3/capita/year (1.1 mg/capita/year) (Wa when the Mexican government started a wastewater im
ter Resources 2000-2001) with uneven distribution. Av provement program for the Valley of Mexico, the farmers
erage rainfall is 777 mm (30.6 inches) per year, and most from the Mezquital Valley were opposed to it. The main
of it occurs over only 4 months per year. argument was to keep the organics and nutrients (car
bon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other micronutrients) as
At the national level, the rates of coverage for drinking fertilizer for the crops.
water and sewage connection in December 1998 were 86
percent and 72 percent, respectively. However, high dis Several projects have been conducted to determine the
crepancies exist for the different regions, in particular for most appropriate treatment that would ensure adequate
sewer connections with 32 percent for small communi disinfection (to minimize epidemiological problems and
ties and 92 percent for large cities. Approximately 22 illnesses), but keeping the nutrients in the reclaimed wa
percent of all the wastewater flow from urban centers ter to preserve the fertilizing property. According to the
throughout the country, estimated at 187 m3/s (49,400 results obtained, it is concluded that advanced primary
gallons/s), are treated at 194 sewage treatment plants. treatment (coagulation/flocculation plus disinfection) pro
The total urban wastewaters produced in Mexico are es- duces water of a consistent quality, independent of the
Table 8-12. Water Withdrawal in Kuwait
Annua l Qua ntity

W a te r Use
(M m 3 ) (m g)
Agricultural 324 85,600

Domestic 201 53,100
Industrial 13 3,435
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 1997
269
Table 8-13. Reclaimed Water Standards in Kuwait
Irrigation of Fodder and Food Crops Irrigation of Food Crops

Parameter
Not Eaten Raw, Forestland Eaten Raw
Level of Treatment Advanced Advanced
SS (mg/L) 10 10
BOD (mg/L) 10 10
COD (mg/L) 40 40
Chlorine Residual (mg/L),
o 1 1
After 12 hours at 20 C
Coliform Bacteria
10,000 100
(count/100 ml)
Table 8-14. Effluent Quality Standards from the Sulaibiya Treatment and Reclamation Plant
Characteristics Monthly Average Value

pH 6 to 9
TDS (mg/l) <100
TSS (mg/l) <1
VSS (mg/l) <1
BOD (mg/l) <1
NH3-N (mg/l) <1
NO3-N (mg/l) <1
PO4-P (mg/l) 2
Sulfide (mg/l) <0.1
Oil and Grease (mg/l) <0.05
TOC (mg/l) <2
Hardness (mg/l) as CaCO3 <10
Color (unit) <1
Enteric Viruses (Geometric Mean) 5
Total Coliforms (colonies/100 ml) <2.2
Source: State of Kuwait, Ministry of Finance (2000).
variation in wastewater quality in the influent. This pro treated municipal wastewater), is reused as make-up
cess may also be used for the treatment of wastewater water in cooling towers in 15 industries. Besides increas
destined for reuse in agriculture in accordance with the ing pressure on water resources, this project is driven by
quality standards established. economic concerns. The competitive cost of reclaimed
water is $0.3/m3, compared to conventional sources of
Another growing issue in Mexico is the reuse of munici groundwater at $0.7/m3, and potable water at $1.4/m3.
pal wastewater in industry. For example, in the Monterrey
metropolitan area, 1.2 m3/s (317 gallons/s) of reclaimed The improvement of sanitation, water resource manage
water (104,000 m3/d, 16 percent of the total volume of ment and water reuse in Mexico requires appropriate ad
270
ministrative reorganization. One possible solution is the than 20 CF/100 ml) is used for golf course irrigation dur
public-private partnership that was successfully estab ing the summer (average volume of reused water 1000
lished in Monterrey (Agua Industrial de Monterrey m3/d or 0.26 mgd). The country does not yet have any
Sociedad de Usuarios) and more recently in Culiacan. specific wastewater reuse regulations and usually refers
to the WHO recommendations.
8.5.19 Morocco
The lack of wastewater treatment before reuse in inland
Despite the influence of the Atlantic Ocean, which con cities has resulted in adverse health impacts, and a high
tributes to the area’s relatively abundant precipitation, incidence of waterborne diseases exist in Morocco. Im
Morocco is an arid to semi-arid country. Out of 150 bil provement in wastewater reuse methods and the quality
lion m3 (120 million acre-feet/year or 40,000 billion gal- of reuse water for irrigation is recognized as essential.
lons/year) of annual rainfall, only 30 billion m3 (24 MAFY Major improvements are urgently needed because of the
or 7,925 billion gallons/year) are estimated to be usable strong migration of the rural population towards the towns
(70 percent as surface water and 30 percent from aqui and the very rapid demographic expansion.
fers). In addition, these resources are unevenly distrib
uted. The catchment areas of the Sebou, Bou Regreg, 8.5.19.1 Drarga, Morocco
and Oum er Rbia wadis alone represent 2/3 of the hy
draulic potential of the country (Food and Agriculture The Morocco Water Resources Sustainability (WRS)
Organization of the United Nations, 2001). Activity is a USAID-funded project that started in July,
1996. The objectives of WRS are: (1) to assist the gov
Approximately 11.5 billion m3 (9 million acre-feet per year ernment of Morocco in undertaking water policy reforms,
or 3,000 billion gallons/year) of water are used annually, (2) to implement pilot demonstrations that introduce tech-
including 3.5 billion m3 (3 million acre-feet per year or 925 nologies which will foster the sustainability of water re
billion gallons/year) from groundwater. Nearly 93 percent sources, and (3) to broaden public participation in water
of this amount is used to irrigate 1.2 million hectares (3 resources management.
million acres), including 850,000 hectares (2 million acres)
irrigated more or less permanently throughout the year. The Commune of Drarga, near Agadir, in southern Mo
rocco, is rapidly expanding. The current population of
Most Moroccan towns are equipped with sewage net 10,000 is expected to double over the next few years.
works that also collect industrial effluent. The volumes Prior to the start of the WRS project, the town of Drarga
of wastewater collected were estimated at 500 Mm3/year had a potable water distribution and wastewater collec
(360 mgd) in 1993 and are expected to reach 700 Mm3/ tion system; however, raw wastewater was being dis
year (500 mgd) in 2020. For Casablanca alone, the an charged into the environment without any treatment, cre
nual production of wastewater is estimated at 250 Mm3/ ating large cesspools and contaminating drinking water
year (180 mgd) in 1991, with forecasts of around 350 sources.
Mm3 (275 mgd) in 2010. However, out of the 60 largest
towns, only 7 have treatment plants, and the design and The 1,000-m3/d (0.26-mgd) Drarga wastewater treatment
operation of those plants are considered insufficient. plant uses a re-circulating sand filtration system. After
screening, the influent flow is treated in anaerobic basins
Most of the wastewater produced by inland towns is re with an average hydraulic retention time of 3 days. The
used, mainly, as raw or insufficiently treated wastewa flow is then sent to equalization storage where it is ad
ter, to irrigate about 8,000 hectares (20,000 acres). Some justed for release to sand filters. The third step of the
times the wastewater is mixed with water from the wa treatment process, after the sand filters, is denitrifica
dis, into which it spills. A high proportion of the remain tion. Finally, the treated flow is sent to reed beds where
ing water is discharged to the sea. The irrigated crops the root systems of the reeds provide further filtration.
are mainly fodder crops (4 harvests of corn per year around The final effluent is stored in a storage basin before being
Marrakech), fruit, cereals, and produce. If irrigated with pumped to irrigate adjacent fields.
wastewater, the growing and selling of vegetables to be
eater raw is prohibited. The implementation of a public participation program has
been one of the cornerstones of the Drarga project. The
The largest water reuse project in Morocco was imple fact that the public was consulted throughout each step
mented in 1997 in Ben Slimane (near Rabat), where 5600 of the project has resulted in overall public support for
m3/d (1.5 mgd) of wastewater is treated by stabilization the project. Public opinion even led to a change in the
ponds (anaerobic, facultative, and maturation ponds) and plant’s location.
the disinfected effluent (absence of helminth eggs, less
271
Another key element of the Drarga pilot project was the

establishment of an institutional partnership. A local
steering committee, made up of all of the institutions
involved with various aspects of water management at
the local level, was created at the beginning of the
project. The role of the steering committee was to fol
low each step of the pilot project and to provide assis
tance, when necessary, based on their specific area of
expertise. After construction, a technical oversight com
mittee was set up to oversee plant operations.
In Morocco, nearly 70 percent of all of the wastewater

treatment plants are not functioning due to lack of spare
parts and poor cost recovery. The Drarga project in
cluded several cost recovery features. The plant itself
generates a number of products that have a market The Goreangab Dam, adjacent to the Windhoek recla-
value: reclaimed water sold to farmers, reeds which are mation plant in Windhoek, Namibia. Photo courtesy of
harvested and sold twice a year, dried sludge from the Valentina Lazarova
anaerobic basins mixed with organic wastes from Drarga
to produce compost, and methane gas from the anaero water production. The plant has since been upgraded in
bic basins, which is recovered and used to run pumps at stages to its present capacity of 21,000 m3/d (5.5 mgd).
the plant, thereby reducing electricity costs.
The wastewater from residential and commercial settings
The plant has been operating continuously since Octo is treated in the Gammans treatment plants by trickling
ber 2000 and has exceeded removal rate targets for the filters (6000 m3/d or 1.6 mgd capacity) and activated
abatement of key pollution parameters such as BOD5, sludge (12,000 m3/d or 3.2 mgd capacity), with enhanced
nitrates, fecal coliforms, and parasites. Table 8-15 sum phosphorus removal. The effluents from each of these
marizes the plant’s performance. processes go to 2 separate maturation ponds for 4 to 12
days of polishing. Only the polished effluent from the
The treated wastewater fulfills the requirements of WHO activated sludge system is directed to the Windhoek rec
reuse guidelines, and therefore, is suitable for reuse in lamation facility as well as water from the Goreangab
agriculture without restriction. The WRS project encour Dam (blending ratio 1:3.5), where it is treated to drinking
aged farmers to use reclaimed water for crop irrigation water standards. After tertiary treatment, reclaimed wa
by developing demonstration plots using drip irrigation. ter is blended again with bulk water from different sources.
Crops irrigated with reclaimed water in the demonstra
tions plots include cereals (wheat and maize), vegetables Advanced treatment processes (including ozonation and
(tomatoes and zucchini), and forage crops (alfalfa and activated carbon) have been added to the initial separa
rye-grasses). tion processes of dissolved air flotation, sedimentation,
and rapid sand filtration. A chlorine residual of 2 mg/l is
8.5.20 Namibia provided in distribution systems. Membrane treatment
has been considered, as well as an additional 140 days
Windhoek, the capital of Namibia, has a population of storage of the secondary effluent from the maturation
200,000 and is located in the desert. In 1960, low rainfall ponds in the Goreangab Dam.
(below 300 mm/year or 11.8 inches/year) caused the nec
essary water supply to fall short of the water demand. To Risk studies and evaluations of toxicity and carcinogenity
meet this need, the country’s water supply master plan have demonstrated that reclaimed water produced at
included the long distance transport of 80 percent of its the Windhoek facility is a safe and acceptable alterna
water supply from the Eastern National Water Carrier, tive water resource for potable purposes. Treatment ca
extensive aquifer withdrawals from around the city, the pacity at the Windhoek treatment plant is currently being
development of a local surface reservoir, and the con increased to 40,000 m3/d (11 mgd).
struction of a reclamation plant. The Windhoek reclama
tion plant has been In operation since 1968 with an initial 8.5.21 Oman
production rate of 4800 m3/d (1.3 mgd) (see photo) This
operation is the only existing example of direct potable Oman is another dry country with internal, renewable wa
ter resources estimated at 1 billion m³/year (388 m3/capita/
272
Table 8-15. Plant Performance Parameters at the Drarga Wastewater Treatment Plant
Parameter Raw Effluent Reduction

BOD5 (mg/l) 625 9 98.5%
COD (mg/l) 1825 75 95.8%
TSS (mg/l) 651 3.9 99.4%
NTK (mg/l) 317 10 96.8%
Fecal coliforms 7
1.6 x 10 500 99.99%
(per 100 ml)
Parasites
5 0 100%
(Helminth eggs)
year or 264 billion gallons/year). Surface water resources Standard A - (200 FC/100 ml, less than 1 nematode
are scarce, with evaporation rates higher than annual rain ova/l) for irrigation of vegetables and fruit to be eaten
fall. In 1995, total water withdrawals including depletion raw, landscape areas with public access, controlled
of non-renewable groundwater, were 1,223 Mm³ (323,000 aquifer recharge, and spray irrigation
mg), of which 93.9 percent was used for agricultural pur
poses. Standard B - (1000 FC/100 ml, less than 1 nematode
ova/l) for cooked vegetables, fodder, cereals, and
In 1995, the total produced wastewater was estimated at areas with no public access
58 Mm³ (15,320 mg) (Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, 2001), of which only 28 Mm³ (7,400 During the summer, all of the reclaimed water in the area
mg) was treated and 26 Mm³ (6,870 mg) was reused, is used, and demands are still not met. But during the
mainly for irrigation of trees along the roads. The quan winter, about 40 percent of the effluent from the Darsait
tity of desalinated water produced in the same period plant is discharged through an outfall to the Gulf of Oman.
was 34 Mm³ (8,980 mg) and was used for domestic pur In the future, the reuse network will be expanded so that
poses. Since 1987, 90 percent of the treated effluent in all the effluent is reused for the irrigation of over 5,600
the capital area has been reused for agricultural irrigation hectares (13,840 acres).
of tree plantations by drip irrigation.
In the southern city of Salalah, the second largest city in
About 262 wastewater treatment plants with capacities Oman, an extensive wastewater collection, conveyance,
below 11,000 m3/d (2.9 mgd) are currently in operation. treatment, and groundwater recharge project is nearing
Over 50 percent of these plants are located in the capital completion. The effluent from the 20,000-m3/d (5.3-mgd)
area around Muscat, with overall capacity of 52,000 m3/ capacity tertiary treatment plant will be discharged to a
d (13.7 mgd), and 20 percent are in Dhofar and Al-Batinat. series of gravity recharge wells along the coast of the
Arabian Sea to form a saltwater intrusion barrier with
The largest wastewater treatment plants are Darsait, Al- additional wells further inland for replenishment of agri
Ansab, and Shatti al Qurm, which produce about 11,500 cultural withdrawals.
m3/d (3 mgd), 5400 m3/d (1.4 mgd), and 750 m3/d (0.2
mgd), respectively. The plants use activated sludge pro 8.5.22 Pakistan
cesses with tertiary filtration and chlorination. Effluent is
pumped to a storage tank that provides pressure to the The use of untreated wastewater for agricultural irriga
water reuse transmission system. tion is common in Pakistan; a survey showed that it was
practiced in 80 percent of all the towns and cities with
There are 2 main Omani rules which regulate water re populations over 10,000 inhabitants. The main crops cul
use: (1) wastewater reuse, discharge and sludge disposal tivated on these lands are vegetables, fodder, and wheat.
rules that include physico-chemical parameters such as Vegetables and fodder are grown year-round to be sold
suspended solids, conductivity, organic matters, heavy at the local market, while wheat is grown in the winter
metals, etc., and (2) wastewater standards related to bio season, mainly for domestic consumption. There are vari
logical characteristics. Reuse regulations further clas ous reasons why untreated wastewater is used for irriga
sify wastewater use into 2 categories: tion such as: lack of access to other water sources, the
273
high reliability of wastewater, the profits made by selling generated is mainly used for the operation and mainte
crops at the local market, and the nutrient value of the nance of the drinking water supply and sewage disposal
wastewater (reducing the need for fertilization). Farmers systems.
using untreated wastewater for irrigation bring in almost
twice the income than farmers using normal irrigation The only wastewater that is currently not auctioned off is
water. the wastewater at the Channel 4 site. The farmers at this
site complain that the toxicity of the wastewater has di
The City of Faisalabad has a population of over 2 million minished their choice in crops and forced them to use
people, making it the third largest city in Pakistan. Lo wastewater only in combination with brackish groundwa
cated in the heart of the Punjab province, Faisalabad was ter. The majority of the farmers at the Channel 4 site
founded in 1900 as an agricultural market town but since would prefer to use regular irrigation water (potable wa
then has rapidly developed into a major agro-based in ter), but increased water shortages in Pakistan have re
dustrial center. The local Water and Sanitation Agency sulted in such low water allocations that the cultivation
(WASA) has identified over 150 different industrial divi of crops without wastewater is no longer possible.
sions in the area, most of which are involved in cotton
processing such as: washing, bleaching, dying, and 8.5.23 Palestinian National Authority
weaving.
Currently, wastewater collection and treatment practices
in the Palestinian National Authority (West Bank and
Gaza Strip) are relatively low. Hence, the ability to re
claim and reuse the large volumes of wastewater gener
ated in this highly water-deficient region is restricted.
However, this situation is changing rapidly. International
development aid from European countries and the U.S.
is gradually strengthening the country’s sanitation infra
structure, leading to the potential availability of greater
volumes of reclaimed water in future years. In addition,
several pilot projects have been conducted with varying
results, but each project has demonstrated potential use
for reclaimed water. The Ministries of Agriculture and Pub
lic Health have studied the use of reclaimed water in
Lahore, Pakistan – Farmers installing a pump into a agriculture, landscape, industry, and groundwater re
wastewater drain to draw water for irrigation. Source: In- charge. As a result, the volume of reclaimed water use
ternational Water Management Institute in Palestine is anticipated to grow over the next 20 years
(Figure 8-4). Farmer acceptance of reclaimed water use
The use of wastewater for agricultural irrigation is com
mon in Faisalabad. At least 9 different areas are irrigated Figure 8-4. Future Demand for Irrigation Water
with wastewater ranging in size from a few hectares to Compared with Potential
almost 1,000 hectares (2,470 acres). In total, over 2,000 Availability of Reclaimed Water for
hectares (4,940 acres) of agricultural land are irrigated Irrigation in the West Bank,
with untreated wastewater in Faisalabad. The 2 main sites Palestine
in Faisalabad are the Narwala Road site and the Channel
4 site. At Narwala Road, the wastewater is primarily of
domestic origin while at the Channel 4 site the farmers
use a mixture of industrial and domestic wastewater. One
wastewater treatment plant in Faisalabad treats approxi
mately 15 percent of the city’s wastewater.
All wastewater reused in Faisalabad is used untreated.

Farmers opt to use untreated wastewater over treated
wastewater because it is considered to be more nutri-
ent-rich and less saline than treated wastewater. In
Faisalabad, like in many other cities in Pakistan, the lo
cal water and sanitation agency sells the wastewater to
groups, or a community of farmers. The total revenue Source: Adapted from Abdo, 2001.
274
is relatively high, as measured in interviews with grow ducer of desalinated water, which covers 70 percent of
ers in both parts of the country (Abdo, 2001). Research the total water demand.
ers found that, “the acceptance of farmers to use re
claimed water was conditional by securing water quality In 1985, Saudi Arabia began focusing on ways to econo
and getting governmental approval” (Abdo, 2001). mize and regulate the use of water through a National
Water Plan. The plan provides for conservation, greater
8.5.24 Peru coordination between agriculture and water policies, in
tensive use of reclaimed waste and surface water, and
Peru is another Latin American country with serious wa better coordination of supply and distribution. As a re
ter shortage problems. Half of the total population of 22 sult, Saudi Arabia is committed to a policy of complete
million live in the coastal region with an arid climate. The water reuse.
uneven distribution of water resources (very high inland,
very short on the coast) contributes to the low water sup Treated urban wastewater is considered a viable alterna
ply and sanitation coverage of the population of only 42 tive resource for meeting water needs. It is estimated
percent and 43 percent, respectively. Only 5 percent of that approximately 40 percent of the water used for do
the sewage in Peru is treated before discharge, mostly mestic purposes in urban areas could be recycled. In
by stabilization ponds. 1992, there were 22 sewage treatment plants in opera
tion (stabilization ponds and activated sludge processes)
The reuse of predominantly raw sewage has been prac with a total treatment capacity of 1.2 Mm³/d (317 mgd).
ticed for agricultural irrigation of vegetables, fodder, for In 1992, 217 Mm³ (57,300 mg) of treated wastewater were
est trees, cotton, and other crops. In Lima, about 5,000 reused. Regulations require secondary treatment with ter
hectares (12,000 acres) are irrigated with raw wastewa tiary treatment for unrestricted irrigation, with standards
ter. A project is under development to irrigate about 4000 shown in Table 8-16.
hectares (10,000 acres) near San Bartolo, south of Lima,
with disinfected effluent from a lagoon system, including The largest water reuse scheme is in Riyadh. The most
maturation ponds. Ica, located 300 kilometers (180 miles) sophisticated Riyadh North treatment plant started op
south of Lima, uses effluent treated in facultative lagoons eration at the beginning of 1994 ,with a design capacity
for restricted irrigation of 400 hectares (1,000 acres). At of 200,000 m3/d (53 mgd). Treatment at the Riyadh North
Tacna, Peru’s southernmost town, effluent treated in la plant includes a nitrification-denitrification activated sludge
goons is used to irrigate 210 hectares (500 acres) of land. process with sand filtration for tertiary treatment. On the
basis of this plant’s treatment experience, the Riyadh
Peru uses raw sewage to irrigate market vegetables to Region Water and Sewerage Authority recently adopted
be eaten without processing. This is typical of numerous a policy of treating all sewage to the tertiary level to comply
cities in developing countries (Yanez, 1992). Furthermore, with the current effluent guideline standards for unre
the effluent produced by stabilization ponds throughout stricted agricultural reuse enforced by the Ministry of
Peru is of generally low quality because of design defi Agriculture and Water. In 2000, an average daily flow of
ciencies, operational problems, or overloading. Numer 415,000 m3/d (110 mgd) of tertiary treated and disinfected
ous enteric bacterial and viral infections are reported, effluent was available to potential users free of charge
although the many possible transmission routes preclude (see photos). However, only about 45 percent (185,000
attributing a direct link to irrigation practices (Strauss m3/d or 49 mgd) of this effluent has been reclaimed, pre
and Blumenthal, 1990). dominantly for agricultural irrigation (170,000 m3/d or 45
mgd), and about 15,000 m3/d (4 mgd) is used for indus
8.5.25 Saudi Arabia trial cooling purpose by the Riyadh refinery. The remain
ing effluent is discharged to Wadi Hanifah, where it is
Water is a scarce and extremely valuable resource in mixed with the natural flow of the channel. Private sector
Saudi Arabia. The renewable water resources are only farmers can extract some of this flow for irrigation.
111 m3/capita/year (2.4 billion m3/year or 634 billion gal-
lons/year). As a result of agricultural, urban, and indus In Jeddah, a 38,000-m3/d (10-mgd) activated sludge fa
trial growth, the country’s water demand has been in cility was designed to produce high-quality reuse water
creasing steadily over the past 2 decades, reaching to standards similar to drinking water standards. Ad
around 20 billion m3/year (5,283 billion gallons/year) in vanced treatment includes reverse-osmosis, desalina
2000. Irrigation consumes the largest amount of water in tion, filtration, and disinfection. Other plants are planned
the kingdom. The majority of water consumption is sup for Jeddah and Mecca. In both cities, the reclaimed wa
plied by depleting non-renewable groundwater and de ter will be used for municipal, industrial, and agricultural
salination. Saudi Arabia is now the world’s largest pro reuse. The City of Jubail is planning to have 114,000 m3/
275
d (30 mgd) of reclaimed water for nonpotable industrial, size (680 square kilometers or 265 square miles). The
urban landscaping, and other purposes. island is fully served by a comprehensive wastewater
infrastructure - 6 secondary (activated sludge) treatment
plants discharge wastewater effluent to the sea.
Since February 2003, Singapore has been supplying high

quality reclaimed water (meeting drinking water stan
dards), called “NEWater”, directly to industries and com
mercial and office buildings for process and other
nonpotable uses such as air conditioning and cooling.
The goal is to supply 245,000 m3/d (64.5 mgd) of NEWater
for nonpotable use by year 2011.
Table 8-16. Reclaimed Water Standards for

Reclaimed water valve access box on sidewalk on Em- Unrestricted Irrigation in Saudi
bassy Row in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Photo courtesy of Arabia
Bahman Sheikh
Maximum Contaminant
Parameter (a)
Level
BOD 10
TSS 10
pH 6 – 8.4
Coliform (count/100 ml) 2.2
Turbidity (NTU) 1
Aluminum 5
Arsenic 0.1
Beryllium 0.1
Boron 0.5
Potable water valve access box on sidewalk on Embassy Cadmium 0.01
Row in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Photo courtesy of Bahman Chloride 280
Sheikh Chromium 0.1
Cobalt 0.05
A recent master planning effort studied the infrastructure
needed to meet Riyadh’s expected growth of an addi Copper 0.4
tional 7 million inhabitants by 2021 (over and above the Cyanide 0.05
current 3.5 million). The master plan recommended 12 Fluoride 2
satellite water reclamation plants be constructed (Sheikh Iron 5
and Aldu Kair, 2000). Each plant would treat wastewater Lead 0.1
from a district and return the reclaimed water (disinfected
Lithium 0.07
tertiary effluent) for irrigation of residential gardens, pub
lic parks, and other landscaping, in addition to industrial Manganese 0.2
and commercial uses in various parts of the city. The Mercury 0.001
water reuse component of the integrated water cycle sys Molybdenum 0.01
tem is expected to have an ultimate capacity of 1.5 Mm3/ Nickel 0.02
d (400 mgd).
Nitrate 10
Selenium 0.02
8.5.26 Singapore
Zinc 4
Singapore is a city-state with a dense, growing popula Oil & Grease Absent
tion of almost 4 million people. Although the island re Phenol 0.002
ceives heavy rainfall averaging 250 cm/year (100 inches/ Note: (a) In mg/l unless otherwise specified
year), it has limited water resources because of its small
276
The NEWater is reclaimed from municipal wastewater chlorination. The reclaimed capacity is 47,000 m3/d (12.4
using the most advanced technologies, including reverse- mgd).
osmosis and UV disinfection. NEWater is also being used
for indirect potable use. Since February 2003, about 9,000 The largest aquifer storage and recharge project is in the
m3/d (2.4 mgd) of NEWater has been discharged into Atlantis area (70,000 people), situated 50 kilometers (31
reservoirs and treated again in a conventional water treat miles) north of Cape Town. Two infiltration basins aug
ment plant before introduction into the distribution sys ment the aquifer storage capacity with 4,500 m3/d (2 Mm3/
tem for domestic potable use. The amount of reclaimed year or 1.2 mgd) of treated wastewater. High-quality
water for indirect potable use will increase gradually by stormwater is also discharged to another aquifer. This
4,500 m3/d (1.2 mgd) yearly to 45,000 m3/d (12 mgd) by water is subsequently abstracted after an underground
2011. Currently, 2 NEWater plants are in operation with residence time of about 1 year as part of a 15,000-m3/d
a total production capacity of 72,000 m3/d (19.5 mgd). (4.0-mgd) groundwater supply project. In addition, treated
The cost of NEWater production is estimated to be half industrial wastewater is used as a barrier against saltwa
the cost of desalinized seawater. ter intrusion near the coast. A number of small recharge
systems exist where farmers augment groundwater sup
Reclaimed water of lower quality than NEWater has been ply through small, earth-dams.
supplied to industries in the western part of Singapore
since the 1960s. Industrial reclaimed water treatment In addition to industrial reuse and aquifer recharge, a
involves conventional sand filtration and chlorination be number of small water reuse irrigation systems are cur
fore it is pumped to a service reservoir for distribution to rently in place in the areas of Durban and Cape Town,
the industries. The current demand for industrial water is mostly for landscape irrigation at golf courses (King
about 90,000 m3/d (24 mgd). David, Mowbray, Rondebosch, Milnerton, Steenberg,
Parow, Durbanville, Cato Ridge, Langebann Country
8.5.27 South Africa Club), sport facilities (Milnerton Racecourse, Milnerton
Beachfront, Bellville South, Kraaifontein Sportsdround,
Limited water resources with uneven distribution, highly Peninsula Technion, etc.), and various agricultural ap
variable rainfall, repetitive, severe water shortages, and plications.
intensive industrial and urban development are the main
factors impacting the need for water reuse in South Af Since many of the country’s water bodies provide little
rica. In 1996, the population was at 38 million, of which dilution capacity, there has been significant focus on
55.4 percent lived in urban regions. The population growth water reuse initiatives involving planned indirect reuse
rate is estimated to be 2.4 percent per year. Based on through discharge to surface bodies. The return of
these population figures, the water demand is expected treated wastewater to rivers in inland areas of South Af
to double in the next 30 years. In fact, projections indi rica has been considered an important aspect of water
cate that the water demand will exceed available water management. Despite the deterioration of surface water
resources soon after the year 2020. quality, the well-established, intensive, potable treatment
system (86 percent water supply coverage) minimizes
Water reuse is considered a very promising alternative any potential health risk. This indirect potable reuse via
water resource. Over 1,000 wastewater treatment plants surface flow augmentation accounts for several million
are in operation with biological nitrogen removal as the cubic meters per day. In fact, with increasing water de
predominant treatment technology. However, according mand, the volume of return flows is increasing steadily
to Grobicki (2000), less than 3 percent of the available and will be greater than natural run-off in a number of
treated wastewater is being reused (an estimated vol regions by 2020. For example, in the Gauteng area
ume of 41 Mm3/year or 11,000 mg/year). (Johannesburg-Pretoria metropolis), 60 percent of the
surface water used for water supply is treated wastewa
Aquifer recharge and industrial uses are currently the ter. The Hartebeespoort Dam, used to supply water to
major water reuse applications. One of the country’s larger Johannesburg (10 million people), receives 50 percent of
reuse projects is in Durban (3 million inhabitants) where its volume from wastewater effluent. In addition to this
reclaimed municipal wastewater from the Southern waste indirect potable reuse, the effluent from Johannesburg
water treatment facility is used by the paper industry and Northern Works (200,000 m3/d or 52.8 mgd) is also used
petrol refineries. The tertiary treatment of the secondary by a power station and for the irrigation of 22,000 hect
effluent from the Southern wastewater treatment works ares (54,400 acres) of industrial crops.
consists of coagulation/flocculation with lamella settling,
dual media filtration, ozonation, activated carbon, and The implementation of the National Water Act of 1997
resulted in the establishment of catchment management
277
authorities. These authorities are helping to focus the treated effluent, particularly in coastal areas, where tour
country’s water resources management enhancement. ism, environmental protection, and intensive agriculture
One of the major tasks of these catchment agencies will have become top priorities. Mediterranean coastal cit
be the management of environmental compliance, while ies, like Barcelona and Valencia, with traditional high levels
water supply and sanitation will remain the responsibility of incidental reuse in agriculture, are seriously consider
of local governments and municipalities. Effluent and en ing rehabilitation and expansion of their treatment facili
vironmental standards specification and enforcement are ties, as to satisfy the water quality requirements associ
the duties of the central government, in particular the ated with environmental and public health protection, and
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. include adopting microbiological quality levels that are
nearly comparable to those of drinking water quality.
Water reuse standards are currently being revised. Ex
isting regulations apply very stringent drinking water In 1999, the Spanish Ministry of Public Works, Trans
standard requirements for water to be used for human portation and Environment proposed a set of physico
washing and irrigation of food crops to be eaten raw. Ter chemical and microbiological standards for 14 possible
tiary treatment with no fecal coliforms is required for un applications of reclaimed water. The proposed microbio
restricted irrigation of sport fields, pasture for milking ani logical standards range from limits similar to those in
mals, and toilet flushing. The microbiological limits have cluded in the Title 22 regulations (Californian reuse stan
been relaxed for discharge into river systems to 126 FC/ dards), for unrestricted water uses, to limits similar to
100 ml, or sometimes even higher. The unrestricted irri those included in the WHO guidelines, where public ex
gation and irrigation of non-food crops requires less that posure to reclaimed water is restricted. Several regional
1000 FC/100 ml. governments have adopted and are currently consider
ing either or both of the above criteria and guidelines as
8.5.28 Spain a practical way to regulate and promote water reclama
tion and reuse.
Although both planned and incidental water reuse have
been taking place in Spain for decades, particularly in 8.5.28.1 Costa Brava, Spain
coastal Mediterranean areas and in the Balearic and Ca
nary inlands, planned water reuse became a viable op The Consorci de la Costa Brava (CCB, Costa Brava Wa
tion as a consequence of the First International Sympo ter Agency) is a public organization, created in 1971,
sium on Water Reclamation and Reuse held in Costa that deals with the management of the water cycle (whole
Brava in 1991 (IAWPRC, 1991). Since then, numerous sale purveyor of drinking water, wastewater treatment,
projects have been implemented across the country, and water reuse) in the 27 coastal municipalities of the
mainly serving agricultural irrigation as well as landscape Girona province. In Spain, CCB is considered to be a
irrigation, environmental restoration, and urban uses pioneer organization in the management of the water
such as street cleaning, urban landscape irrigation, boat cycle. The CCB embraces biological secondary treat
washing, and fire control. ment of wastewater when the main option in coastal ar
eas has been disposal into the sea through submarine
The major impetus for water reclamation and reuse has outfalls. The CCB introduced the concept of planned water
been based on the viable alternatives for cost recovery. reuse in the late 1980s.
The highly competitive water markets of the Canary Is
lands, the highly productive hydroponic crops of the The CCB opted for the progressive development of this
southern Mediterranean coast, and the more recent de resource after a conference in 1985, where renowned
mands for golf course irrigation, have largely contributed specialists presented planned wastewater reclamation
to the expansion of water reclamation and reuse in Spain. and reuse systems in the U.S. Being that Costa Brava
Farmers have begun to realize the considerable benefits itself is an area with a Mediterranean climate and peri
from a reliable supply of good quality water, particularly odic periods of drought, it became clear to the governing
during the summer season, when water shortages are board of the CCB that treated wastewater should be con
most common. sidered as a resource to be developed rather than to be
disposed. Despite the lack of regulations in Spain, the
The Water and Sanitation District of Costa Brava (lo CCB proceeded to develop water reuse while maintain
cated in the north of Barcelona) has been one of the ing public health. Reclaimed water initially was disinfected
leading agencies in developing water reuse alternatives secondary effluent; continuing improvements to water
for the last 15 years. As secondary wastewater treat reclamation facilities have led facilities to evolve into
ment becomes a standard in most urban and rural areas, Title 22 reclamation treatment trains, consisting of co
a renewed interest has developed to reclaim and reuse agulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and dis
278
infection. The major leap forward in wastewater reclama in 1998. Since then, 500 to 550 m3/year (132,000 to
tion and reuse occurred in 1996, when several water re 145,300 gallons/year) of denitrified reclaimed water have
use projects were approved and partially (80 percent) been pumped to the Cortalet lagoon, preventing its sum
funded by the European Union (EU). mer desiccation. Apart from this, the constructed wet
land itself has become a great waterfowl attraction and
8.5.28.2 Portbou, Spain is one of the favorite spots in the natural preserve for
bird watching. Since the Empuriabrava community uses
The municipality of Portbou (Girona, Spain - population water from the Boadella reservoir as a potable water sup
1,600) is located in a remote area in northern Costa ply, this project returns to the AENP a portion of the
Brava, in the midst of a very mountainous area and fac flows that are naturally used to feed these marshes, thus
ing the Mediterranean Sea. A small reservoir, located creating a true restoration of the original habitat.
on the mountains on the western city limits, with a ca
pacity of 130,000 m3 (34.3 mg), supplies potable water to 8.5.28.4 The City of Vitoria, Spain
the area. The maximum drinking water demand is
160,000 m3/year (42.3 mg/year) and the potable water Water reclamation and reuse has been the final step of
supply is extremely dependent on rainfall (annual aver an ambitious integrated water resources management
age 550 mm or 21.7 inches). There are no wells to supple program for the City of Vitoria (250,000 people, located
ment potable water supply, so the drought conditions of in the Basque Country, northern Spain) that began in 1995.
the period 1998 through 2001 resulted in water restric The enthusiasm and determination of the most directly
tions for nonpotable water uses including landscape irri affected stakeholders, the agricultural community, to pro
gation. The municipality has a 360-m3/d (95,000-gallons/ mote and fund the design, construction, and OM&R of
d) treatment facility which includes coagulation, floccu the wastewater reclamation and reuse facilities have been
lation, direct filtration, and a UV-chlorine combined disin the driving factors for the practical implementation of this
fection system to provide reclaimed water for a variety far-reaching program.
of urban nonpotable water uses such as: landscape irri
gation, street cleaning, and fire protection. The munici The water reclamation and reuse project includes a waste
pality is also installing a pipeline to deliver high-quality water reclamation facility, with a capacity of 35,000 m3/d
reclaimed water for boat cleaning to a nearby marina. (9.2 mgd) and an elaborate pumping, conveyance, and
storage system, satisfies water quality requirements
8.5.28.3 Aiguamolls de l’Empordà Natural specified by Title 22 of the California Code of Regula
Preserve, Spain tions. The project objectives were: (1) to provide water
for spray irrigation of 9,500 hectares (23,000 acres) dur
The Aiguamolls de l’Empordà Natural Preserve (AENP) ing the summer, (2) to pump about 0.5 m3/s (12,000 gal-
is a marsh located in Northern Costa Brava between lons/d) of reclaimed water to reservoirs, and (3) to store
the mouths of the Muga and Fluvià rivers. This naturally reclaimed water in a 6,800-m3 (1.8-mg) reservoir for agri
occurring marsh formed as a result of the periodical cultural irrigation.
floods from both rivers, producing a rich and diverse
environment, ranging from saline to freshwater ecosys 8.5.29 Sweden
tems. The construction of the Boadella dam in the up
per Muga River in the late 1960s and urbanization in As in other Scandinavian countries, Sweden has rela
coastal areas dramatically changed the river flow and tively high freshwater availability and the annual water
affected the marshes, which were finally declared a natu withdrawal represents only 2 percent of the renewable
ral preserve in 1984. A visitor center was created and water resources, 352 m3/capita/year (93,000 gallons/
with it an 18-hectare (44.5-acre) manmade lagoon (Cortalet capita/year) in 1997 (Angelakis et al., 2001). Industry is
lagoon), which is artificially fed by the Corredor stream characterized by higher water demand at 55 percent, com
from autumn to late spring. In summer both this stream pared to 36 and 9 percent for urban uses and agriculture,
and the lagoon usually dry out. respectively.
In 1995, the CCB received funding from the EU to con Advanced sewage treatment, including carbon and phos
struct a 7-hectare (17.3-acre) wetlands treatment sys phorus removal, is common practice in Sweden. The
tem to reduce the nitrogen content in the secondary ef upgrading of many wastewater treatment plants for nitro
fluent from the Empuriabrava wastewater treatment plant, gen removal has been implemented over the past years,
which includes extended aeration and polishing lagoons. especially in the coastal region up to the archipelago of
The effluent is then reused for environmental purposes Stockholm.
at the Cortalet lagoon. The system came into operation
279
Over 40 irrigation projects have been constructed in wa- 172,000 and 434,000 mg/year), respectively for 1995,
ter-scarce areas in the southeast region, where waste 2000, and 2025. At the same time, the availability of
water is collected in large reservoirs and stored for up to good quality water has diminished around cities. This
9 months before being used for irrigation with or without has led farmers to start using untreated wastewater. How
blending with surface water. Agricultural demands for water ever, this wastewater is generally mixed with good qual
in these areas are intense, as the precipitation is small. ity water and is used essentially, but not exclusively, for
Two main benefits of these projects have been reported: irrigating trees and forage crops (Food and Agriculture
(1) additional wastewater treatment in a safe and finan- Organization of the United Nations, 2001).
cially attractive way, including recycling of nutrients, and
(2) the creation of alternative water resources for agricul- Table 8-17 shows the status of wastewater treatments
tural irrigation which allow groundwater resources to be in various Syrian cities. Collected raw sewage from the
dedicated for other purposes. After approximately 10 cities (except for a part of Damascus), villages, and other
years, only positive impacts have been reported for these residential areas where sewage systems are in opera
water reuse projects. After a minimum of 4 months stor tion, is used without any treatment. The wastewater is
age, the water quality is adequate for swimming accord used either for direct irrigation of agricultural crops or, if
ing to the Swedish legislation. Subsequently, there have not disposed to the sea, it is discharged into water bod
been no sanitary problems related to water reuse. ies which are then used for unrestricted irrigation (Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2001).
A new environmental act in Sweden requires nitrogen
reduction for most of the large wastewater treatment 8.5.31 Tunisia
plants. This act may encourage future development of
these water reuse irrigation systems. The increasingly Situated in an arid and semi-arid area, Tunisia is facing
stringent environmental requirements on the discharge increasingly serious water shortage problems (Bahri,
of industrial wastewater promote byproduct recovery and 2000). In 2000, water availability was 440 m3/capita/year
industrial wastewater reclamation. Significant research (116,200 gallons/capita/year) with withdrawals account
and development efforts have been made on the use of ing for 78 percent of the renewable resources. These
membrane technologies, including industrial desalination water deficits are projected to increase with population
for zero discharge. growth, an increase in living standards, and accelerated
urbanization. According to recent forecasts, increased
8.5.30 Syria domestic and industrial water consumption by the year
2020 may cause a decrease in the volume of fresh water
In Syria, agriculture is an important economic sector. In available for Tunisian agriculture. Moreover, water short
addition to the role it plays in enhancing food security, it age problems are associated with increasing environmen
accounts for 60 percent of the national revenue from tal pollution. To help address this situation, different mo
non-oil exports (Food and Agriculture Organization of the bilization infrastructures (dams, hillside-dams and lakes,
United Nations, 2001). The agricultural sector employs recharge and floodwater diversion structures, wells) are
over 27 percent of the total manpower in the country. In under construction. Water transfer systems have been
view of the harsh climatic conditions, irrigation is given a implemented and existing reservoirs have been integrated
high priority as a means to boost agricultural production into a complex hydraulic system, allowing interregional
and to ensure a high level of food security. The total transfer and spatial redistribution of water.
irrigated area in Syria is in the range of 1.2 million hect
ares (3 million acres), with 61 percent of the water com Most residents of large urban centers have access to
ing from groundwater and the rest from surface water various, adequate sanitation systems and wastewater
sources. treatment facilities (78 percent versus 61 percent for all
of the population and 40 percent in rural areas). Of the
Until recently, the amount of municipal wastewater was 240 Mm3 (63,400 mg) of wastewater discharged annu
small because of the limited population in cities. Most of ally, 156 Mm3 (41,200 mg) is treated at 61 treatment
these waters were not reused because of their lack of plants. Five treatment plants are located in the Tunis
quality and the availability of good quality water for irriga area, producing about 62 Mm3/year (16,400 mg/year), or
tion. With an increase in urban population and the spread 54 percent of the country’s treated effluent. As a rule,
of drinking water supply connections, particularly in large municipal wastewater is treated biologically, mainly in
cities, the volume of municipal wastewaters has increased oxidation ditches, activated sludge processes, and sta
rapidly. In fact, the volume of wastewater in Syria was bilization ponds. Sanitation master plans have been de
estimated at 451, 650 and 1,642 Mm3/year (365,000, signed for several towns. Most existing reuse programs
527,000, and 1,330,000 acre-feet/year or 119,000, were implemented and integrated into the scheme of al
280
Table 8-17. Wastewater Treatment Plants in the Cities of Syria
Wastewater Flow
City Status in Year 2000
3
m /day mgd
Damascus 485,000 128 In Operation
Salamieh 5,800 2 In Operation
Aleppo 255,000 67 Under Implementation
Hama 70,000 18 Under Implementation
Homes 134,000 35 In Operation
Dar’s 21,800 6 Studied, Ready for Implementation
Al-Swaida 18,750 5 Studied, Ready for Implementation
Idleb 30,000 8 Studied, Ready for Implementation
Lattakia 100,830 27 Invitation of Offers for Implementation
Tatous 33,450 9 Invitation of Offers for Implementation
Total 1,154,630 305 ---
Source: Sa’dulla Al Shawaf, Ministry of Irrigation, Syria, 2000.
ready existing treatment plants. However, for new plants, and 74,100 acres). However, the availability of agricul
treatment and reuse needs are combined and consid tural land is a limiting factor, especially along seashores
ered during the planning stage. where most of the reclaimed water is generated. The most
common irrigation methods are sprinklers (57 percent of
Although some pilot projects have been launched or are the equipped area) and surface irrigation (43 percent).
under study for groundwater recharge, irrigation of for Another common water reuse practice is golf course irri
ests and highways, and wetlands development - the gation. In fact, 8 existing golf courses are irrigated with
wastewater reuse policy, launched in the early 1980s treated effluent in compliance with the WHO guidelines
favors planned water reuse for agricultural and land (1989) for water reuse on recreational areas with free
scape irrigation (Bahri, 2000). Approximately 7 to 10 per access to the public (2.3 log units /100 ml) during winter
cent of the overall irrigated area (14,500 hectares or and part of spring.
35,830 acres) is located around the Great Tunis. Re
claimed water is used mainly during spring and summer, Water reuse in agriculture is regulated by the 1975 Water
either exclusively or as a complement to groundwater. Law and by the JORT Decree No. 89-1047 (1989). The
About 35 Mm3 (9,250 mg) of reclaimed water annually is reclaimed water quality criteria for agricultural reuse
allocated for irrigation. In some areas, irrigation with ef were developed using the guidelines of Food and Agri
fluent is well established and most of the volume allo culture Organization of the United Nations (1985) and
cated is being used. In new areas, where irrigation is just WHO (1989) for restricted irrigation (less than 1 helminth
beginning, the reclaimed water usage rate is slowly in egg/l), and other Tunisian standards related to irrigation
creasing. The annual volume of reclaimed water is ex or water supply. The Water Law prohibits both the use of
pected to reach 290 Mm3 (76,600 mg) in the year 2020. raw wastewater in agriculture and the irrigation with re
At that point, reclaimed water could be used to replace claimed water of any vegetable to be eaten raw. The
groundwater (18 percent) that is currently being used for 1989 decree specifically regulates reuse of wastewater
irrigation, particularly in areas where excessive ground in agriculture and allows the use of secondary treated
water mining is causing seawater intrusion in coastal effluent for growing all types of crops except vegetables,
aquifers. whether eaten raw or cooked. The main crops irrigated
with treated wastewater are fruit trees (citrus, grapes,
The area currently irrigated with reclaimed water is about olives, peaches, pears, apples, and grenades), fodder
7,000 hectares (17,300 acres), 80 percent of which is (alfalfa, sorghum, and berseem), sugar beet, and cere
located around Tunis, with a few other locations near als. Peri-urban irrigated areas are mainly devoted to the
Hammamet, Sousse, Monastir, Sfax, and Kairouan. By production of vegetables eaten raw, which is a major
2020, the area irrigated with reclaimed water is planned constraint to reuse development because of the crop-
to expand between 20,000 and 30,000 hectares (49,400 type irrigation restrictions. Specifications regarding the
281
terms and general conditions of reclaimed water reuse for urban irrigation of 15,000 hectares (38,000 acres) of
(and the precautions that must be taken in order to pre urban forests, public gardens, trees, shrubs, and grassed
vent any contamination to workers, residential areas, and areas along roadways. The treatment facility provides
consumers) have also been established. tertiary treatment with rapid sand filtration and disinfec
tion by chlorination and ozonation. The reclaimed water
Two new, large water reuse projects are planned for Tunis distribution system is operated at lower pressure than
West and the Medjerda catchment area. The new waste the potable system to reduce wind spraying. Convey
water treatment plant for the City of Tunis West will have ance and control elements of the system are painted
a design capacity of 105,000 m3/d (41 Mm3/year or 27.7 purple, marked, and labeled to avoid cross-connections.
mgd) by the year 2016, which will enable the irrigation of
approximately 6,000 hectares (14,800 acres). The ongo Al-Ain, with a projected population of 250,000 by the year
ing Medjerda catchment area sanitation program is plan 2000, produces reclaimed water that may be used only
ning to equip the 11 largest towns with sewage networks, for restricted irrigation. The reclaimed water is pumped
treatment plants, and reclaimed water irrigation schemes about 12 kilometers (7 miles) outside the city where it is
in order to protect natural resources, particularly the Sidi used for irrigation in designated areas. Treatment includes
Salem dam (450 Mm3 or 119,000 mg), from contamina dual-media filtration and chlorination for disinfection.
tion by raw wastewater.
8.5.33 United Kingdom
The National Sewerage and Sanitation Agency is respon
sible for the construction and operation of all sewage The impact of climatic change on inland water resources
and treatment infrastructure in the larger cities of Tuni has been noted in the southeast of England in the United
sia. When effluent is to be used for agricultural irrigation, Kingdom, where a drought had been experienced in the
the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for execution of early 1990s. As a result, diminishing raw water supplies
the projects, which include the construction and opera led water planners to develop projects to help safeguard
tion of all facilities for pumping, storing, and distributing and optimize existing raw water supplies, as well as
the reclaimed water. Various departments of the Ministry search for future resources.
are responsible for several functions, while regional de
partments supervise the Water Code and collection of The United Kingdom has used sewage effluents to main
charges, about $0.01/m3 ($0.04/1,000 gallons), accord tain river flows (and ecosystems) and, through river
ing to the World Bank (2001). abstractions, to contribute towards potable water and to
augment other supplie. This practice is particularly de
8.5.32 United Arab Emirates veloped for the major rivers in the south and east, includ
ing the Thames River, where it is not always feasible to
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a federation of 7 abstract upstream of sewage works.
emirates: Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ras Al Khaimah,
Fujairah, Umm ul Quwain, and Ajman. According to the For example, in the Water Resource Plan for East Anglia
1995 national census of the Ministry of Planning, the of 1994, the National Rivers Authority (a predecessor
population is approximately 2.4 million, mostly urban (83 body of the Environment Agency) recognized the impor
percent). Only a few renewable water resources are avail tance of reclaiming wastewater effluents to augment the
able - 200 Mm3 or 61 m3/capita/year (52,830 mg or 16,100 flow in the River Chelmer and the water stored in the
gallons/capita/year) in 2000. The annual water demand Hanningfield reservoir in Essex, United Kingdom. As a
of 954 m3/capita/year is met by depleting non-renewable result of this decision, the first indirect potable reuse
aquifers and desalinization (700 Mm³/year or 185,000 mg/ project in Europe was implemented in 1997 (Lazarova,
year in 1997). It is estimated that about 500 Mm³ (132,000 2001). Water quality for this project has been strictly
mg) of wastewater were produced in the urban areas dur observed including the monitoring of viruses and estro
ing 1995, of which 108 Mm³ (28,530 mg) were treated gens, as well as numerous studies of the impact of re
and reused (Food and Agriculture Organization of the use on the environment (estuary ecosystem) and public
United Nations, 2002). health (Walker, 2001). The project was developed in 2
stages. The first stage involved a temporary system to
By far the largest emirate in the United Arab Emirates is pretreat the effluent at Langford Works with UV disinfec
Abu Dhabi, where extensive nonpotable reuse has been tion before pumping the effluent to Hanningfield reser
practiced since 1976. The system, designed for 190,000 voir, a large 27-Mm3, 354-hectare (7,130-mg, 875-acre)
m3/d (50 mgd), includes a dual distribution network which bankside raw water reservoir with a residence time of up
uses reclaimed water—referred to, in the UAE and other to 214 days. Abstraction from the reservoir is followed
Persian Gulf states as treated sewage effluent (TSE)— with advanced potable water treatment at the Hanningfield
282
Treatment Works. The discharge consent applied for uti The total amount of treated wastewater is estimated at
lizing 30,000 m3/d (7.9 mgd) of the sewage effluent in around 92,000 m3/d (24.3 mgd) from 9 treatment facili
1997 to 1998. The second stage of the project involves ties. The largest plants are located in Sana’s, Ta’aiz, Al-
more traditional water reuse - discharging the effluent Hudeidah, and Aden. The common wastewater treatment
back into the river and improving the wastewater treat method used is stabilization ponds, with the exception
ment at the source - Langford Treatment Works. This being the facility of Sana’s, which utilizes an activated
medium/long term plan was approved in 2000 and the sludge system. In addition, 3 new treatment plants with
new tertiary treatment plant has been in operation since stabilization ponds will be in operation in 2002 in Aden,
the beginning of 2002. The reclaimed water is discharged Yarim, and Amran with design capacities of 60,000, 3,500,
into the River Chelmer and then abstracted along with and 6,000 m3/d (15.9, 0.93, and 1.6 mgd), respectively.
river water 4 kilometers (2.5 miles) downstream at New plants are also planned in Beit Al-faqih, Bagel, and
Langford Treatment Works for drinking water supply. Zabid.
There are also some examples of direct treated waste Controlled water reuse for irrigation is practiced in the
water reuse in the United Kingdom, mainly for irrigation coastal plain cities (Aden, Hodeidah), mainly to build the
purposes such as: golf courses, parks, road verges, as green belts, as well as for the fixation of sand dunes or
well as for commerce, car washes, cooling, fish farming control of desertification in affected areas. Unplanned
, and industry (power station cooling, for example). One and unregulated wastewater reuse is commonly practiced
of the more recent projects “Waterwise,” was started in by the farmers to grow corn and fodder in Taiz area, or to
January, 1999, to reuse the water from the Beazer Homes grow restricted and non-restricted crops, like vegetables
district. Wastewater from 500 individual houses is treated and fruits, in the Sana’a area.
by a conventional process; then 70 percent of the water
is then discharged to the river and the remaining 30 per In 2000, the new wastewater treatment plant for the capi
cent undergoes tertiary treatment before being redistrib tal city of Sana’a began operation. The activated sludge
uted to 130 houses connected to a dual distribution net treatment plant, with a design capacity of 50,000 m3/d
work as reuse water. (13 mgd), faces numerous operational problems. The prob
lems are due, among other things, to a lack of sufficient
There are several pilot projects being conducted to study operational storage and an organic load of the incoming
reusing grey water from washing machines, baths, and wastewater that is higher than the load used in the plant
showers for the flushing of toilets. Since domestic use design. The plant substantially increased the amount of
accounts for over 40 percent of the total water demand reclaimed water available to farmers in 15 villages along
in the United Kingdom, 30 percent of which is used for the wadi, downstream of the plant. Farmers pump the
toilet flushing, the interest in grey water reuse is grow reclaimed water with their own pumps to their fields. This
ing. In some case, run-off water is also collected from has reduced the pressure on the overexploited aquifer in
the roofs of the houses, treated, and blended with grey the area. The number of active agricultural wells was
water to be reused. reduced from 80 to 55, mainly because pumping re
claimed water is cheaper than operating the wells. Veg
A large in-building water reuse project, known as etables are the main crops grown and there are no crop
“Watercycle,” was implemented in 2000 at the Millen restrictions. Farmers have little information about the
nium Dome in London. The design capacity of the plant quality of the treated wastewater. Upgrades to the treat
is 500 m3/d (132,000 gallons/d). Run-off water, grey wa ment plant are planned to make the reuse of reclaimed
ter, and polluted groundwater are treated in 3 different water safer in the future (World Bank, 2001).
treatment trains to a high quality standard for reuse in
the more than 600 toilets and over 200 urinals on-site. Five water reuse projects are being initiated in Aden,
Amran, Hajjah, Ibb, and Yarim. Funded by the German
8.5.34 Yemen government’s Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW), these
projects will make significant volumes of secondary treated
Yemen has a predominantly semi-arid to arid climate with reclaimed water available, mostly for agricultural irriga
a large rural population (76 percent). The annual renew tion. In Aden, some of the water will be used for indus
able water resources were estimated in 2000 at 4.1 bil trial cooling. The wastewater collection and treatment
lion m3 or 226 m3/capita/year (1,083 billion gallons or systems are already being constructed or have recently
59,700 gallons/capita/year) (surface water and ground been completed for each of the cities in the program.
water). There is an increasing awareness in Yemen of
groundwater depletion.
283
8.5.35 Zimbabwe Bahri, A. and F. Brissaud, 2002. Guidelines for Munici

pal Water Reuse In The Mediterranean Countries, World
In Zimbabwe, water reuse is an established practice that Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe,
has been accepted not only by engineers and environ Mediterranean Action Plan.
mentalists, but also by all stakeholders involved in the
water resources management of the country (Hranova, Bahri, Akissa and Franois Brissaud, 2003, “Setting Up
2000). This acceptance of water reuse has been influ Microbiological Water Reuse Guidelines for the Medi
enced by 2 major factors governing the water resources terranean,” published on the website of the Mediterra
systems management of the country: (1) the scarcity of nean Network for Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse,
available natural water resources, and (2) the watershed www.med-reunet.com.
effect. Geographically, Zimbabwe’s major towns lie on
or close to the main watershed. Therefore, in order to Barbagallo, S., Cirelli, G.L., and Indelicato, S. 2001.
increase the catchment yield, water supply dams are, in “Wastewater Reuse in Italy.” Water, Science & Technol
many cases, located downstream from the urban areas. ogy, 43, 10, 43-50.
The present policy of wastewater management focuses Bazza, Mohamed. 2002. “Wastewater Reuse in the Near
primarily on 2 major types of water reuse. One is direct East Region: Experience and Issues.” Regional Sympo-
reuse of treated wastewater for irrigation purposes, where sium on Water Recycling in the Mediterranean Region,
the treatment technologies adopted are based on classi Iraklio, Crete, Greece. 26-29 September 2002.
cal biological treatment systems, mainly trickling filters,
waste stabilization ponds, and combinations. The 2 larg Blumenthal, U., Peasey, A., Ruiz-Palacios, G., and Mara,
est direct reuse projects for irrigation purposes are lo D.D. 2000. Guidelines for wastewater reuse in agricul-
cated in 2 major towns of Zimbabwe – Harare and ture and aquaculture: recommended revisions based
Bulawayo. The second type is indirect potable water re on new research evidence. Task No. 68 Part 1, Water
use, where municipal wastewater is treated in biological and Environmental Health at London and Loughborough,
nutrient removal plants and then discharged to water UK, June 2000.
courses and reservoirs that are used for potable water
supply downstream from the discharge point. Cranfield University. 2000. Urban Water Recycling Pack.
Available from www.jiscmail.uk/files/WATER-RECY-
8.6 References CLING-UK/cranfieldwatrec.doc.
Abdo, Kasim M. 2001. Water Reuse in Palestine. Pre Dettrick, D., S. Gallagher. 2002. Environmental Guide-
sented at World Bank MENA Regional Water Initiative- lines for the Use of Recycled Water in Tasmania, De
Water Reuse Workshop in Cairo, July 2-5, 2001, Minis partment of Primary Industries, Water and Environment,
try of Agriculture, General Directorate of Soil & Irrigation, Tasmania, Australia.
Ramallah Palestine.
Earth Trends: The Environmental Information Portal,
Angelakis, A., T. Thairs, and V. Lazarova. 2001. “Water 2001. “Water Resources and Freshwater Ecosystems,
Reuse in EU Countries: Necessity of Establishing EU- 1999-2000.” World Resources Institute, http://
Guidelines. “State of the Art Review.” Report of the earthtrends.wri.org/datatables/
EUREAU Water Reuse Group EU2-01-26, 52p.
Falkenmark M. and Widstrand C. (1992) Population and
Angelakis, A.N., Tsagarakis, K.P., Kotselidou, O.N., and Water Resources: A Delicate Balance. Population Bul
Vardakou, E. 2000. “The Necessity for Establishment letin, Population Reference Bureau.
of Greek Regulations on Wastewater Reclamation and
Reuse.” Report for the Ministry of Public Works and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Environment and Hellenic Union of Municipal Enter. for website. 2002. www.fao.org.
Water Supply and Sewage. Larissa, Greece (in Greek),
pp. 100. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
2001. “Experience of Food and Agriculture Organization
Bahri, A. 2000. “The experience and challenges of re of the United Nations on Wastewater Reuse in the Near
use of wastewater and sludge in Tunisia,” 15 p., Water East Region.” Proceedings, Regional Workshop on Wa-
Week 2000, 3-4 April 2000, World Bank, Washington D.C., ter Reuse in the Middle East and North Africa organized
USA. by The World Bank Middle East and North Africa Region,
July 2 - 5, 2001, Cairo, Egypt.
284
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Lazarova, V., B. Levine, J. Sack, G. Cirelli, P. Jeffrey,
1997. Irrigation in the Near East Region in Figures. H. Muntau, M. Salgot, and F. Brissaud. 2001. “Role of
Rome, Italy water reuse for enhancing integrated water manage
ment in Europe and Mediterranean countries.” Water
Grobicki A. 2000. “Water Reclamation in South Africa.” Science & Technology, Vol 43 No 10 pp 23-33. IWA
Proc. AWWA/WEF Water Reuse 2000 Conference, Jan Publishing.
30-Febr 2, 2000, San Antonio, USA, 23p.
Mantovani, P., Asano, T., Chang, A. and Okun, D.A.
Hamdallah, H. 2000. Reuse of Treated Wastewater for 2001. “Management Practices for Nonpotable Water
Agriculture, Presented at the Aqua 2000 Conference, Reuse.” WERF, Project Report 97-IRM-6, ISBN: 1-
April 28 to May 2, 2000, Abu Dhabi, UAE. 893664-15-5.
Homsi. J. 2000. “The present state of sewage treatment”. Mara, D.D. and Silva, S.A. 1986. “Removal of intestinal
Water Supply, 18. nematodes in tropical waste stabilization ponds.” Jour-
nal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 89, pp. 71-74.
Hranova R. K. 2000. Water reuse in Zimbabwe: an over
view of present practice and future needs. Newsletter of McCornick, P. G., S. S. E. Taha, and H. El Nasser. 2002.
the IWA Water Reuse Specialist Group, June 2000. Planning for Reclaimed Water in the Amman-Zarqa Ba-
sin and Jordan Valley. ASCE/EWRI Conference on
International Association on Water Pollution Research Water Resources Planning & Management, Roanoke,
and Control. 1991. Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse. Virginia, USA.
R. Mujeriego and T. Asano (eds.) Water Science and
Technology, 24(9): 36. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Revised by: George Tchobanoglous
and Franklin L. Burton. 1991. Wastewater Engineering
IWA. 2002. “Mexico City, 4TH International Symposium – Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse. New York: McGraw-
on Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse” Conference Hill.
Announcement, www.iingen.unam.mx/isw/index1.html.
Ogoshi, M., Y. Suzuki, and T. Asano. 2000. “Water Re
Jenkins, C.R., Papadopoulos, I. and Stylianou, Y. 1994. use In Japan,” Third International Symposium on Waste-
“Pathogens and wastewater use for irrigation in Cyprus”. water Reclamation, Recycling and Reuse at the First
Proc. on Land and Water Resources Management in the World Congress of the International Water Association
Mediterranean Region. Bari, Italy, 4-8 September 1994. (IWA), Paris, France.
Jiménez, B., Chávez, A., Mayan, C., and Gardens, L. Palestine Hydrology Group. 1999. [Unofficial Translation
2001. “The Removal of the Diversity of Microorganisms from Hebrew into English] Principles for giving permits
in Different Stages of Wastewater Treatment.” Water for irrigation with effluents (Treated Wastewater). The Is
Science & Technology, 43, 10, 155-162. raeli Ministry Of Health, Israel.
Kanarek A. and Michail M. 1996. “Groundwater recharge Papadopoulos, I. 1995. “Present and perspective use of
with municipal effluent: Dan region reclamation project, wastewater for irrigation in the Mediterranean basin.” Proc.
Israel.” Water Science & Technology, 34, 11, 227-233. 2nd Int. Symp. On Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse,
A.N. Angelakis et. al. (Eds.), IAWQ, Iraklio, Greece, 17
Kotlik, L. 1998. “Water reuse in Argentina”. Water Sup- 20 October, 2, 735-746.
ply, 16, (1/2), 293-294.
Pettygrove and Asano .1985. “Irrigation with reclaimed
Lazarova V. 1999. “Wastewater reuse: technical chal municipal wastewater – A guidance manual.” Lewis
lenges and role in enhancement of integrated water Publishers Inc., Chelsea.
management.” E.I.N. International, Dec. 99, 40-57.
Pujol, M. and O. Carnabucci. 2000. “The present state
Lazarova, V. (2001) Recycled Water: Technical-Economic of sewage treatment in Argentina”. Water Supply, 18, (1/
Challenges for its Integration as a Sustainable Alterna 2), 328-329.
tive Resource. Proc. UNESCO Int. Symp. Les frontiéres
de la gestion de l’eau urbaine: impasse ou espoir?, Sa’dulla Al Shawaf, Ministry of Irrigation, Syria. 2000.
Marseilles, 18-20 juin 2001, 8p.
285
Scott, C. A., J. A. Zarazua, G. Levine. 2000. “Urban Region: Unlocking the Potential.” Report of Joint Mis
Wastewater Reuse for Crop Production in the Water-Short sion to Cyprus, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia,
Guanajuato River Basin.” Research Report 41. Interna Turkey, the West Bank and Gaza and Yemen.
tional Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
United Nations 2002, www.un.org
Shanehsaz, M. J., A. R. Hosseinifar, A. Sabetraftar. 2001.
“Water Reuse in Iran,” by the Iran Water Resources Man Walker D. 2001. “The impact of disinfected treated waste
agement Organization, Ministry of Energy, Proceedings, water in raw water reservoir.” J.Ch.Instn.Wat.& Envir.
Regional Workshop on Water Reuse in the Middle East Mangt., 15, (1), 9.
and North Africa, July 2-5, 2001, Cairo, Egypt.
WHO. 1973. Reuse of Effluents: Methods of Wastewater
Shawaf, S., 2000. “Reuse of Wastewater in Syrian Arab Treatment and Health Safeguards. A report of WHO Meet
Republic,” Ministry of Irrigation, Proceedings, Aqua 2000 ing of Experts. Technical Report No. 517. Geneva, Swit
Conference, April 28 to May 2, 2000. Abu Dhabi, UAE. zerland.
Sheikh, B., AlduKair, A. 2000. “Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi WHO, 1989. Health Guidelines for the Use of Wastewa
Arabia, A Vision Of 2021” ter in Agriculture and Aquaculture. Report of a Scientific
Group. Technical Report No. 778. Geneva, Switzerland.
“Introducing Water Reuse to A World Capital.” Proceed-
ings, AWWA-WEF Joint Water Reuse Conference. San World Bank. 2001. Regional Water Initiative: Water Re-
Antonio, Texas. use in the Middle East and North Africa, Proceedings
(and Compact Disc Summary Tabulations), Regional
Sheikh, B. 2001. Standards, Regulations & Legislation Workshop, Sponsored by the World Bank and the Swiss
for Water Reuse in Jordan. Water Reuse Component, Agency for Development and Cooperation, July 2-5, 2001,
Water Policy Support Project, Ministry of Water and Irri Cairo, Egypt, The World Bank, Washington, D. C.
gation, Amman, Jordan.
World Bank. 2000. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in
Shelef, G. and Halperin R. 2002. “The development of the Middle East and North Africa Region. The World Bank,
wastewater effluent quality requirements for reuse in Washington, D. C.
agricultural irrigation in Israel.” Proc. Regional Sympo-
sium on Water Recycling in Mediterranean Region, 26-29 World Health Organization. 1989. Health Guidelines for
September, 2002, Iraklio, Greece. the Use of Wastewater in Agriculture and Aquaculture.
Report of a WHO Scientific Group, Technical Report
State of Kuwait, Ministry of Finance. 2000. Concession Series 778, World Health Organization, Geneva, Swit
Contract to Build, Operate, and Transfer (BOT) a Waste- zerland.
water Treatment and Reclamation Plant at Sulaibiya.
Worldwatch Institute, 1999. www.worldwatch.org
Strauss, M. and U.J. Blumenthal. 1990. Human Waste
Use in Agriculture and Aquaculture: Utilization Practices Yanez, F. 1992. Evaluation and Treatment of Wastewa-
and Health Perspective. IRCWD Report No. 09/90. ters Prior to Agricultural Reuse in Peru (in Spanish).
Report to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Tchobanoglous, G. and A.N. Angelakis. 1996. “Technolo Nations on Project FAO/PERU/TCP/PER/.
gies for Wastewater Treatment Appropriate for Reuse:
Potential for Applications in Greece.” Water Science
Technology, 33(10-11): 17-27.
Tsagarakis, K.P., P. Tsoumanis, D. Mara and A.N.

Angelakis. 2000. “Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in
Greece: Related Problems and Prospectives.” IWA, Bi-
ennial International Conference, Paris, France.
UNDP/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations/The World Bank/WHO. 1998. “Wastewater Treat
ment and Reuse in the Middle East and North Africa
286
Appendix A
State Reuse Regulations and Guidelines
287
Table A-1. Unrestricted Urban Reuse
Reclaimed Reclaimed
Water Quality Water Treatment
and Treatment Monitoring Facility Storage Loading Groundwater Setback
(1) (1) (1) (2)
State Requirements Requirements Reliability Requirements Rates Monitoring Distances Other
Arizona Class A • Case-by-case • Application • Class A
reclaimed water: basis rates based on reclaimed
• Secondary either the water may be
treatment, water allotment used for
filtration and assigned by residential
disinfection the Arizona landscape
• Chemical feed Department of irrigation,
facilities Water schoolground
required to add Resources (a landscape
coagulants or water balance irrigation, toilet
polymers if that considers and urinal
necessary to consumptive flushing, fire
meet turbidity use of water by protection
criterion the crop, turf, systems,
• Turbidity or landscape commercial
- 2 NTU (24 vegetation) or closed-loop air
hour average) an alternative conditioning
– 5 NTU (not approved systems,
to exceed at method vehicle and
288
any time) equipment

• Fecal coliform washing, and
- none snowmaking
detectable in 4 • Class B
of last 7 daily reclaimed
samples water may be
- 23/100 ml used for
(single sample landscape
maximum) impoundment,
Class B construction
reclaimed water: uses, and
• Secondary street cleaning
treatment and • Application
disinfection methods that
• Fecal coliform reasonably
- 200/100 ml preclude
(not to exceed human contact
in 4 of the last with reclaimed
7 daily water will be
samples) used when
- 800/100 ml irrigating
(1) For irrigation use only.

(2) Distances are from edge of wetted perimeter unless otherwise noted.
Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
(single sample
maximum)
Arkansas • Secondary • As required by • Based on • Hydraulic - 0.5 • Required • Determined on
treatment and regulatory water balance to 4.0 in/wk • One well a case-by-case
disinfection agency using divisional • Nitrogen - upgradient basis
average percolate • One well within
annual 90 nitrate-nitrogen site
percentile not to exceed • One well
rainfall 10 mg/l downgradient
• More wells
may be
required on a
case-by-case
basis
California • Disinfected • Total coliform - • Warning • No irrigation • Includes
tertiary sampled at alarms within 50 feet landscape
recycled water least once • Back-up power of any irrigation of
-oxidized, daily from the source domestic water parks,
coagulated disinfected • Multiple supply well playgrounds,
289
(not required if effluent treatment units unless certain schoolyards,

membrane • Turbidity capable of conditions are residential
filtration is - continuously treating entire met lawns, and
used and/or sampled flow with one unrestricted
turbidity following unit not in access golf
requirements filtration operation or courses, as
are met), storage or well as use in
filtered, disposal decorative
disinfected provisions fountains
• Total coliform • Emergency • Also allows
- 2.2/100 ml storage or reclaimed
(7-day median) disposal: water use for
- 23/100 ml short-term, toilet and urinal
(not to exceed 1 day; flushing, fire
in more than long-term, protection,
one sample in 20 days construction
any 30-day • Sufficient uses, and
period) number of commercial car
- 240/100 ml qualified washing
(maximum any personnel
one sample)

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
• Turbidity
requirements
for wastewater
that has been
coagulated
and passed
through natural
undisturbed
soils or a bed
of filter media
- maximum
average of
2 NTU within a
24-hour period
- not to exceed
5 NTU more
than 5 percent
of the time
within a
290
24-hour period
- maximum of
10 NTU at any
time
• Turbidity
requirements
for wastewater
passed
through
membrane
- not to exceed
0.2 NTU more
than 5 percent
of the time
within a
24-hour period
- maximum of
0.5 NTU at any
time

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
Colorado Landscape Treaters: • Application Landscape
irrigation • Quality of rates shall irrigation
excluding single- reclaimed protect surface excluding single-
family residential: domestic and family residential:
• Oxidized, wastewater groundwater • No
filtered and produced and quality and impoundment
disinfected delivered at irrigation shall or irrigation of
• E. coli - the point of be controlled reclaimed
126/100 ml compliance to minimize water within
(monthly Applicators: ponding 100 feet of any
average) • Total volume well used for
- 235/100 ml of reclaimed domestic
(single sample domestic supply unless,
maximum in wastewater in the case of
any calendar applied per impoundment,
month) year or season it is lined with a
• Turbidity • The maximum synthetic
- not to exceed monthly material with a
3 NTU volume applied permeability of
-6
• Each location
291
(monthly 10 cm/sec or
average) with the less
- not to exceed associated Single-family
5 NTU in more acreage where residential:
than 5 percent reclaimed • No irrigation of
of the domestic reclaimed
individual wastewater water within
analytical was applied 500 feet of any
results (any domestic
calendar supply well
month) • No irrigation of
Single-family reclaimed
residential: water within
• Oxidized, 100 feet of any
coagulated, irrigation well
clarified,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Total coliform
- 2.2/100 ml
(7-day median)

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
- 23/100 ml
(any sample)
Delaware • Advanced • Continuous on- • Storage • Maximum • Required • Determined on • Regulations
treatment line monitoring provisions design • One well a case-by-case pertain to sites
using for turbidity required either wastewater upgradient of basis unlimited to
oxidation, before as a separate loadings site or public access
clarification, application of facility or limited to otherwise
coagulation, the disinfectant incorporated 2.5 in/wk outside the
flocculation, • Continuous on- into the • Maximum influence of the
filtration, and line monitoring pretreatment instantaneous site for
disinfection of residual system wastewater background
• 10 mg/l BOD5 disinfection • Minimum 15 application monitoring
• 10 mg/l TSS concentrations days storage rates limited to • One well within
• Turbidity not to • Parameters required 0.25 in/hour wetted field
exceed 5 NTU which may unless other • Design area of each
• Fecal coliform require measures for wastewater drainage basin
- 20/100 ml monitoring controlling flow loading must intersected by
include volume are be determined site
of water demonstrated as a function of • Two wells
• Must determine
292
applied to precipitation, downgradient

spray fields, operational, evapotrans- in each
BOD, wet weather, piration, design drainage basin
suspended and water percolation intersected by
solids, fecal balance rate, nitrogen site
coliform storage loading and • One well
bacteria, pH, requirements other upgradient and
COD, TOC, • Separate off- constituent One well
ammonia line system for loading downgradient
nitrogen, storage of limitations, of the pond
nitrate reject groundwater treatment and
nitrogen, total wastewater and drainage storage
Kjeldahl with a conditions, and facilities in
nitrogen, total minimum average and each drainage
phosphorus, capacity equal peak design basin
chloride, Na, to 2 days wastewater intersected by
K, Ca, Mg, average daily flows and site
metals, and design flow seasonal • May require
priority required fluctuations measurement
pollutants of depth to
• Parameters groundwater,

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
and sampling pH, COD,
frequency TOC, nitrate
determined on nitrogen, total
case-by-case phosphorus,
basis electrical
conductivity,
chloride, fecal
coliform
bacteria,
metals, and
priority
pollutants
• Parameters
and sampling
frequency
determined on
a case-by-case
basis
Florida • Secondary • Parameters to • Class I • At a minimum, • Site specific • Required • 75 feet to • Includes use of
• Design •
293
treatment with be monitored reliability - system storage One potable water reclaimed
filtration and and sampling requires capacity shall hydraulic upgradient well supply wells water for
high-level frequency to multiple or be the volume loading rate - located as • 75 feet from irrigation of
disinfection be identified in back-up equal to 3 maximum close as reclaimed residential
• Chemical feed wastewater treatment units times the annual possible to the water lawns, golf
facilities to be facility permit and a portion of the average of site without transmission courses,
provided • Minimum secondary average daily 2 in/wk is being affected facility to public cemeteries,
• 20 mg/l schedule for power source flow for which recommended by the site’s water supply parks,
CBOD5 sampling and • Minimum no alternative • Based on discharge well playgrounds,
(annual testing based reject storage reuse or nutrient and (background • Low trajectory schoolyards,
average) on system capacity equal disposal water balance well) nozzles highway
• 5 mg/l TSS capacity to 1-day flow at system is assessments • One well at the required within medians, and
(single sample) established for the average permitted edge of the 100 feet of other public
to be achieved flow, pH, daily design • Water balance zone of outdoor public access areas
prior to chlorine flow of the required with discharge eating, • Also includes
disinfection residual, treatment plant volume of down-gradient drinking, and use of
• Total chlorine dissolved or the average storage based of the site bathing reclaimed
residual of at oxygen, daily permitted on a 10-year (compliance facilities water for toilet
least 1 mg/l suspended flow of the recurrence well) • 100 feet from flushing, fire
after a solids, CBOD5, reuse system, interval and a • One well indoor protection,
minimum nutrients, and whichever is minimum of 20 downgradient aesthetic construction

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
acceptable fecal coliform less years of from the site features using dust control,
contact time of • Continuous • Minimum climatic data and within the reclaimed vehicle
15 minutes at on-line system size of • Not required if zone of water to washing and
peak hourly monitoring of 0.1 mgd (not alternative discharge adjacent aesthetic
flow turbidity prior required for system is (intermediate indoor public purposes
• Fecal coliform to disinfection toilet flushing incorporated well) eating and • Tank trucks
- over 30 day • Continuous and fire into the system • One well drinking can be used to
period, 75 on-line protection design to located facilities apply
percent of monitoring of uses) ensure adjacent to • 200 feet from reclaimed
samples below total chlorine • Staffing - continuous unlined unlined water if
detection limits residual or 24 hrs/day, facility storage ponds storage ponds requirements
- 25/100 ml residual 7 days/wk or operation or lakes to potable are met
(single sample) concentrations 6 hrs/day, • Existing or • Other wells water supply • Cross-
• pH 6 - 8.5 of other 7 days/wk with proposed lakes may be wells connection
• Limitations to disinfectants diversion of or ponds (such required control and
be met after • Monitoring for reclaimed as golf course depending on inspection
disinfection Giardia and water to reuse ponds) are site-specific program
Cryptosporidium system only appropriate for criteria required
based on during periods storage if it will • Quarterly
294
treatment plant of operator not impair the monitoring

capacity presence ability of the required for
- > 1 mgd, lakes or ponds water level,
sampling one to function as a nitrate, total
time during stormwater dissolved
each 2-year management solids, arsenic,
period system cadmium,
- < 1 mgd, • Aquifer chloride,
sampling one storage and chromium,
time during recovery lead, fecal
each 5-year allowed as coliform, pH,
period provision of and sulfate
- samples to storage • Monitoring
be taken may be
immediately required for
following additional
disinfection parameters
process based on site-
• Primary and specific
secondary conditions and
drinking water groundwater
standards to quality

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
be monitored quality
by facilities >
100,000 gpd
Georgia • Secondary • Continuous • Multiple • Reject water • Determined on
treatment turbidity process units storage equal a case-by-case
followed by monitoring • Ability to to at least basis
coagulation, prior to isolate and 3 days of flow
filtration, and disinfection bypass all at the average
disinfection • Weekly process units daily design
• 5 mg/l BOD sampling for • System must flow
• 5 mg/l TSS TSS and BOD be capable of • One of the
• Fecal coliform • Daily treating peak following
- 23/100 ml monitoring for flows with the options must
(monthly fecal coliform largest unit out be in place to
average) • Daily of service account for wet
- 100/100 ml monitoring for • Equalization weather
(maximum any pH may be periods
sample) • Detectable required - sufficient
• pH 6 - 9 disinfection • Back-up power storage onsite
• Turbidity not to
295
residual supply or at the

exceed 3 NTU monitoring • Alarms to warn customer’s
prior to of loss of location to
disinfection power supply, handle the
• Detectable failure of flows until
disinfectant pumping irrigation can
residual at the systems, be resumed
delivery point failure of - additional
disinfection land set aside
systems, or that can be
turbidity irrigated
greater than without
3 NTU causing harm
to the cover
crop
- obtain
NPDES permit
for all or part of
the flow
Hawaii R-1 water: • Daily flow • Multiple or • 20 days • Design • Required R-1 water: • R-1 water can

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
• Oxidized, monitoring standby units storage application rate • Groundwater • Minimum of 50 be used for
filtered, and • Continuous required with required determined by monitoring feet to drinking spray Irrigation
disinfected turbidity sufficient unless it can water balance system may water supply of golf courses,
• Fecal coliform monitoring capacity to be consist of a well parks,
– 2.2/100 ml prior to and enable demonstrated number of • Outer edge of elementary
(7-day median) after filtration effective that another lysimeters impoundment schoolyards,
- 23/100 ml process operation with time period is and/or at least 100 athletic fields,
(not to exceed • Continuous any one unit adequate or monitoring feet from any landscapes
in more than measuring and out of service that no storage wells drinking water around some
one sample in recording of • Alarm devices is necessary depending on supply well residential
any 30-day chlorine required for • Storage site size, site R-2 water: property,
period) residual loss of power, requirements characteristics, • For spray roadside and
- 200/100 ml • Daily high water based on location, irrigation median
(maximum any monitoring of levels, failure water balance method of applications, landscapes,
one sample) fecal coliform of pumps or using at least a discharge, and 500 feet to landscape
• Inactivation • Weekly blowers, high 30-year record other residence impoundments
and/or removal monitoring of head loss on • Reject storage appropriate property or a with decorative
of 99.999 BOD5 and filters, high required with a considerations place where fountain, and
percent of the suspended effluent volume equal • One well public decorative
296
plaque-forming solids turbidity, loss to 1 day of flow upgradient and exposure could fountains
units of F- of coagulant or at the average two wells be similar to • R-1 water can
specific polymer feed, daily design downgradient that at a park, also be used
bacteriophage and loss of flow for project sites elementary for flushing
MS2, or polio chlorine • Emergency 500 acres or school yard or toilets and
virus residual system storage more athletic field urinals, fire
• Effluent • Standby power not required • One well within • Minimum of fighting and
turbidity not to source where an the wetted field 100 feet to any washing yards,
exceed 2 NTU required for alternate area for each drinking water lots and
• Chemical treatment plant effluent project whose supply well sidewalks
pretreatment and distribution disposal surface area is • Outer edge of • R-2 water can
facilities pump stations system has greater than or impoundment be used as
required in all been approved equal to 1,500 at least 300 source of
cases where acres feet from any supply for
granular media • One lysimeter drinking water landscape
filtration is per 200 acres supply well impoundments
used; not • One lysimeter without
required for for project sites decorative
facilities using that have fountain and
membrane greater than 40 construction
filtration but less than uses

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
• Theoretical 200 acres • If alternative
chlorine • Additional application
contact time of lysimeters may methods are
120 minutes be necessary used, such as
and actual to address subsurface,
modal contact concerns of drip or surface
time of 90 public health or irrigation, a
minutes environmental lesser quality
throughout protection as reclaimed
which the related to water may be
chlorine variable suitable
residual is characteristics • R-2 water
5 mg/l of the used in spray
R-2 water: subsurface or irrigation will
• Oxidized and of the be performed
disinfected operations of during periods
• Fecal coliform the project when the area
– 23/100 ml is closed to the
(7-day median) public and the
297
- 200/100 ml public is
(not to exceed absent from
in more than the area, and
one sample in end at least 1
any 30-day hour before the
period) area is open to
• Theoretical the public
chlorine • Subsurface
contact time of irrigation may
15 minutes be performed
and actual at any time
modal contact
time of 10
minutes
throughout
which the
chlorine
residual is
0.5 mg/l
Idaho • Oxidized, • Includes

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
coagulated, irrigation of
clarified, parks,
filtered, and playgrounds,
disinfected schoolyards
• Total coliform and other
- 2.2/100 ml areas where
(7-day median) children are
more likely to
have access or
exposure
• Irrigation to be
accomplished
during periods
of non-use
Illinois • Two-cell • Minimum • Based on the • Required • 200 feet to
lagoon system storage limiting • One well residential lot
with tertiary capacity equal characteristic upgradient for lines
sand filtration to at least 150 of the treated determining
and days of wastewater background
298
disinfection or wastewater at and the site concentrations

mechanical design • Balances must • Two wells
secondary average flow be calculated downgradient
treatment with except in and submitted in the
disinfection southern for water, dominant
Illinois areas nitrogen, direction of
where a phosphorus, groundwater
minimum of and BOD movement
120 days of • Wells between
storage each potable
capacity to be water well and
provided the application
• Storage can area if within
be determined 1,000 feet
based on a • Monitoring of
rational design nitrates,
that must ammonia
include nitrogen,
capacity for the chlorides,
wettest year sulfates, pH,
with a 20-year total dissolved

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
return solids,
frequency phosphate,
and coliform
bacteria
Indiana • Secondary • Daily • Alternate • Minimum of 90 • Maximum • 200 feet to • Pertains to
treatment and monitoring of power source days effective hydraulic potable water land with a
disinfection TSS, coliform, required storage loading rate of supply wells or high potential
• 10 mg/l BOD5 and chlorine capacity 2 in/week drinking water for public
• 5 mg/l TSS residual required springs exposure
prior to • Weekly • 300 feet to any
disinfection (24 monitoring of waters of the
hour average) BOD and pH state
• Fecal coliform • Monthly • 300 feet to any
- no detectable monitoring of residence
fecal coliform total nitrogen,
(7-day median) ammonium
– 14/100 ml nitrogen,
(single sample) nitrate
• pH 6 - 9 nitrogen,
299
• Total chlorine phosphorus,

residual after a and potassium
minimum • Annual
contact time of monitoring of
30 minutes at arsenic,
least 1 mg/l (if cadmium,
chlorination is copper, lead,
used for mercury,
disinfection) nickel,
selenium, and
zinc
Kansas • Secondary • Storage • Maximum daily • Site specific • None required • Projected uses
treatment with provided to application rate • May be include
filtration and retain a of 3 in/ac/day required irrigation of
disinfection for minimum of 90 • Maximum golf courses or
irrigation of days average annual public parks
areas with a dry weather application rate with a low
high probability flow when no of 40 in/acre probability of
of body contact discharge to • Based on soil body contact
surface water and crop • Public access
is available moisture prohibited

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
and/or nutrient during and 8
requirements hours after
of selected irrigation
crop
Massachusetts Toilet flushing: Toilet flushing: • EPA Class I • Immediate, • The use of
• Secondary • pH - weekly or Reliability permitted reclaimed
treatment with daily standards may discharge water for toilet
filtration • BOD - weekly be required alternatives flushing is
(possibly) and • Turbidity - • Two are required allowed at
disinfection continuous independent for emergency commercial
• pH 6 - 9 monitoring and separate situations and facilities where
• 30 mg/l BOD5 prior to sources of for non- public access
• Turbidity disinfection power growing to the
- 5 NTU • Fecal coliform • Unit season plumbing is not
(not to exceed -once per redundancy disposal allowed
at any time) week • Additional
• Fecal coliform • Disinfection storage
- 100/100 ml UV intensity -
(single sample) daily or
• 10 mg/l TSS
300
chlorine
• 10 mg/l total residual - daily
nitrogen • TSS - weekly
• Class I • Nitrogen -
groundwater twice per
permit month
standards • Permit
(SDWA standards -
Drinking Water variable testing
Standards) requirements
Montana • Oxidized, • Effluent to be • Nitrogen and • Determined on • 100 feet to any • Includes
clarified, monitored on a hydraulic a case-by-case water supply landscape
coagulated, regular basis loadings basis well irrigation of
filtered, and to show the determined • Consideration • Distance to parks,
disinfected biochemical based on is given to surface water playgrounds,
• Fecal coliform and methods in groundwater determined on schoolyards,
- 2.2/100 ml bacteriological EPA Manual characteristics, a case-by-case unrestricted
(7-day median) quality of the 625/1-81-013 past practices, basis based on golf courses,
- 23/100 ml applied • Hydraulic depth to quality of and other
(single sample) wastewater loading must groundwater, effluent and areas where
• Turbidity • Monitoring be based on cropping the level of the public has

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
- 2 NTU frequency to the wettest practices, etc. disinfection similar access
(average) be determined year in ten or exposure
- 5 NTU (not to on a case-by- years
exceed more case basis
than 5 percent
of the time
during any 24-
hour period)
Nevada • At a minimum, • None required • Uses include
secondary irrigation of
treatment with cemeteries,
disinfection golf courses,
• 30 mg/l BOD5 greenbelts,
• Fecal coliform parks,
- 2.2/100 ml playgrounds,
(30-day or commercial
geometric or residential
mean) lawns
- 23/100 ml
301
(maximum
daily number)
New Jersey • Fecal Coliform • Continuous • Not required • Hydraulic • 75 feet to • Secondary
- 2.2/100 ml on-line when another loading rate potable water treatment, for
(7-day median) monitoring of permitted - maximum supply wells the purpose of
- 14/100 ml chlorine reuse system annual that are the manual,
(maximum any residual or effluent average of existing or refers to the
one sample) produced disposal 2 in/wk but have been existing
• Minimum oxidant at the system is may be approved for treatment
chlorine compliance incorporated increased construction requirements
residual monitoring into the system based on a • 75 feet in the NJPDES
- 1.0 mg/l after point design site-specific provided from permit, not
15-minute • For spray • If system evaluation a reclaimed including the
contact at peak irrigation, storage ponds • The spray water additional
hourly flow chlorination are used, they irrigation of transmission reclaimed
• Alternative levels for do not have to reclaimed facility to all water for
methods of disinfection be lined water shall not potable water beneficial
disinfection, should be • Reject storage produce supply wells reuse
such as UV continually ponds shall be surface runoff • 100 feet from treatment
and ozone, evaluated to lined or sealed or ponding outdoor public requirements
may be ensure to prevent eating, • A chlorine

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
approved chlorine measurable drinking, and residual of
• TSS not to residual levels seepage bathing 0.5 mg/l or
exceed 5 mg/l do not • Existing or facilities greater is
before adversely proposed • 100 feet recommended
disinfection impact ponds (such as between to reduce
• Total nitrogen vegetation golf course indoor odors, slime,
- 10 mg/l but • Continuous ponds) are aesthetic and bacterial
may be less monitoring for appropriate for features and re-growth
stringent if turbidity before storage of adjacent
higher limit is disinfection is reuse water if indoor public
still protective required the ability of eating and
of environment • Operating the ponds to drinking
• Secondary protocol function as facilities when
• Filtration required stormwater in the same
• Chemical • User/Supplier management room or
addition prior Agreement systems is not building
to filtration may • Annual usage impaired
be necessary report
New Mexico • Adequately • Fecal coliform • Includes
302
treated and sample taken irrigation of

disinfected at point of parks,
• Fecal coliform diversion to playgrounds,
- 100/100 ml irrigation schoolyards,
golf courses,
cemeteries,
and other
areas where
the public has
similar access
or exposure
North Carolina • Tertiary quality • Continuous • All essential • Determined • Site specific • 100 feet to any • Uses include
effluent on-line treatment units using a mass • Application surface waters irrigation of
(filtered or monitoring and to be provided water balance rate may take classified SA, residential
equivalent) recording for in duplicate based upon a both the including lawns, golf
• TSS turbidity or • Five-day side- recent 25-year maximum soil wetlands courses, parks,
- 5 mg/l particle count stream period using absorption and • 25 feet to any school
(monthly and flow prior detention pond monthly water needs of surface water grounds,
average) to discharge required for average the receiving not classified industrial or
- 10 mg/l (daily effluent precipitation crop into SA, including commercial
maximum) exceeding data, potential consideration wetlands and site grounds,

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
• Fecal coliform turbidity or evapotrans- any swimming landscape
- 14/100 ml fecal coliform piration data, pool areas, highway
(monthly limits and soil • 100 feet to any medians, and
geometric • Automatically drainage data water supply roadways
mean) activated • No storage well • Can also be
- 25/100 ml standby power facilities • 10 feet to any used for
(daily source to be required if it nonpotable aesthetic
maximum) provided can be well purposes such
• BOD5 • Certified 24 demonstrated as decorative
- 10 mg/l hours/day that other ponds or
(monthly operator with a permitted fountains, dust
average) grade level disposal control, soil
- 15 mg/l (daily equivalent to options are compaction,
maximum) or greater than available street cleaning,
• NH3 the facility vehicle
- 4 mg/l classification washing, urinal
(monthly and toilet
average) flushing, or fire
- 6 mg/l (daily protection in
303
maximum) sprinkler
• Turbidity not to systems
exceed 10 located in
NTU at any commercial or
time industrial
facilities
North Dakota • At a minimum, • BOD5, TSS, • Use applies to
secondary and fecal irrigation of
treatment with coliform public property
chlorination monitoring such as parks
• 25 mg/l BOD5 once every 2 and golf
• 30 mg/l TSS weeks courses
• Fecal coliform • Daily • Signs must be
- 200/100 ml monitoring of posted in
• Chlorine chlorine visible areas
residual of at residual at the during
least 0.1 mg/l point of use irrigation and
farthest from for 2 hours
the treatment after irrigation
plant is completed
Ohio • Biological Large system • Operational • Determined by • Monitoring • 100 feet to • Includes parks,

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
treatment and monitoring storage of 4 calculating a wells private water golf courses,
disinfection (150,000 to times the daily water and upgradient and well lawns, highway
• 25 mg/l 500,000 gpd): design flow nutrient downgradient • 300 feet to medians, and
CBOD5 • Twice weekly needed balance of large community playing fields
• Fecal coliform for CBOD5, • Storage irrigation water well
(30-day total coliform provisions for systems • 100 feet to
average) (when at least 130 • Monitoring sink hole
- 23/100 ml irrigating) and days of design wells should • 50 feet to
with no public storage average flow be sampled at drainage way
access buffer volume needed for the beginning • 50 feet to
area or night • Monthly periods when and the end of surface water
application monitoring for irrigation is not the irrigation • 100 feet to
• Limits for total inorganic recommended season road right-of-
metals nitrogen • Actual storage way without
• Daily requirements windbreak
monitoring for determined by using spray
flow performing irrigation
Small system water balance • 10 feet to road
monitoring • Permits can be right-of-way
304
(<150,000 gpd): obtained for with windbreak

• Weekly stream or with flood
monitoring of discharge irrigation
CBOD5, total during winter • 50 feet to
coliform (when and times of property line
irrigating) and high stream
storage flow to reduce
volume storage needs
• Daily
monitoring of
flow
Oregon Parks, Parks, • Standby power Parks, • No direct
playgrounds, playgrounds, with capacity playgrounds, public contact
schoolyards, and schoolyards, and to fully operate schoolyards, and is allowed
golf courses with golf courses with all essential golf courses with during the
contiguous contiguous treatment contiguous irrigation cycle
residences: residences: processes residences:
• Level IV - • Total coliform • Redundant • None required
biological sampling treatment Landscape
treatment, - one time a facilities and impoundments
clarification, day monitoring and construction

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
coagulation, • Turbidity equipment to use:
filtration, and - hourly meet required • 10-foot buffer
disinfection Landscape levels of with surface
• Total coliform impoundments treatment irrigation
- 2.2/100 ml and construction • Alarm devices • 70-foot buffer
(7-day median) use: to provide with spray
- 23/100 ml • Total coliform warning of loss irrigation
(maximum any sampling of power • No spray
sample) - once a week and/or failure irrigation within
• Turbidity of process 100 feet of
- 2 NTU equipment drinking
(24-hour fountains or
mean) food
- 5 NTU preparation
(5 percent of areas
time during a
24-hour
period)
Landscape
305
impoundments
and construction
use:
• Level II -
biological
treatment and
disinfection
• Total coliform
- 240/100 ml
(2 consecutive
samples)
- 23/100 ml
(7-day median)
South Carolina • Advanced • Minimum of • Storage • Hydraulic - • May be • None required • Applies to
wastewater one fecal or facilities are maximum of required application of
treatment total coliform not required to 0.5 - 2 in/wk reclaimed
• BOD5 and TSS presence/ be lined depending on water in areas
- 5 mg/l absence • Covered depth to with a high
(monthly measurement storage groundwater potential for
average) daily systems or • A nitrate to contact
- 7.5 mg/l • Nitrate other nitrogen • Includes

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
(weekly monitoring alternative loading residential
average) required methods may balance may irrigation
• Turbidity be required to be required systems,
- 1 NTU maintain • Application multifamily
(monthly effluent quality rates in excess irrigation
average) prior to of 2 in/wk may systems,
- 5 NTU (not to distribution be approved commercial
exceed based irrigation
on an average systems in
for 2 common
consecutive residential
days) areas, public
• Total coliform parks, and
- similar to open spaces
standards in
State Primary
Regulations
- for a system
that collects at
306
least 40
samples per
month, if no
more than 5
percent are
total coliform-
positive, the
system will be
in compliance
with the MCL
for total
coliform
• Total chlorine
residual limits
based on site
conditions and
distribution
system design
South Dakota • Secondary • Minimum of • Maximum • Shallow wells
treatment and 210 days application rate in all directions
disinfection capacity limited to of major

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
• Total coliform without 2 in/acre/wk or groundwater
- 200/100 ml consideration a total of flow from site
(geometric for evaporation 24 in/acre/yr and no more
mean) than 200 feet
outside of the
site perimeter,
spaced no
more than 500
feet apart, and
extending into
the
groundwater
table
• Shallow wells
within the site
are also
recommended
Tennessee • Biological • Site specific • Storage • Nitrogen - • Required Surface Irrigation: • Pertains to
treatment requirements percolate • 100 feet to site irrigation of
• Additional
307
determined by nitrate-nitrogen boundary parks, green

treatment either of two not to exceed • 50 feet to on areas, and
requirements methods 1) 10 mg/l site streams, other public or
are determined use of water • Hydraulic - ponds, and private land
on a case-by- balance based on roads where public
case basis calculations or, water balance Spray Irrigation: use occurs or
• Disinfection 2) use of a using 5-year [1] Open Fields is expected to
required computer return monthly • 300 feet to site occur
• 30 mg/l BOD5 program that precipitation boundary
and TSS was developed • 150 feet to on
(monthly based upon an site streams,
average) extensive ponds, and
• Fecal coliform NOAA study of roads
- 200/100 ml climatic [2] Forested
variations • 150 feet to site
throughout the boundary
United States • 75 feet to on
site streams,
ponds, and
roads
Texas • Type I • Sampling and • Based on • Type I

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
reclaimed analysis twice water balance reclaimed
water per week for water use
Reclaimed water BOD5 or defined as use
on a 30-day CBOD5, of reclaimed
average to have turbidity, and water where
a quality of: fecal coliform contact
• 5 mg/l BOD5 or • Periodic fecal between
CBOD5 coliform humans and
• 10 mg/l for sampling in the the reclaimed
landscape reclaimed water is likely
impoundment) water • Uses include
• Turbidity distribution residential
- 3 NTU system may be irrigation,
• Fecal coliform necessary irrigation of
- 20/100 ml public parks,
(geometric golf courses
mean) with
- 75/100 ml unrestricted
(not to exceed public access,
308
in any sample) schoolyards or

athletic fields,
fire protection,
toilet flushing,
and other uses
Utah • Type I treated • Daily • Alternative • 50 feet to any • Uses allowed
wastewater composite disposal option potable water where human
- secondary sampling or diversion to well exposure is
treatment with required for storage • Impoundments likely include
filtration and BOD required if at least 500 residential
disinfection • Continuous turbidity or feet from any irrigation, non-
• 10 mg/l BOD turbidity chlorine potable water residential
(monthly monitoring residual well landscape
average) prior to requirements irrigation, golf
• Turbidity prior disinfection not met course
to disinfection • Daily irrigation, toilet
- not to exceed monitoring of flushing, fire
2 NTU (daily fecal coliform protection, and
average) • Continuous other uses
- not to exceed total residual • For residential
5 NTU at any chlorine landscape

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
time monitoring irrigation at
• Fecal coliform • pH monitored individual
- none continuously or homes,
detected by daily grab additional
(weekly samples quality control
median as restrictions
determined may be
from daily grab required
samples)
- 14/100 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• 1.0 mg/l total
residual
chlorine after
30 minutes
contact time at
peak flow
• pH 6 - 9
• BOD – 24-hour • Warning • Storage • Hydraulic • May be • 50 feet to any • Uses include
309
Washington Landscape
irrigation, composite alarms required when loading rate to required potable water irrigation of
decorative samples independent of no approved be determined • Monitoring supply well open access
fountains, street collected at normal power alternative based on a program will be • Unlined areas (such as
cleaning, fire least weekly supply disposal detailed water based on impoundments golf courses,
protection, and • TSS – 24-hour • Back-up power system exists balance reclaimed - 500 feet parks,
toilet flushing: composite source • Storage analysis water quality between playgrounds,
• Class A - samples • Emergency volume and quantity, perimeter and schoolyards,
oxidized, collected at storage: established by site specific any potable residential
coagulated, least daily short-term, determining soil and water supply landscapes, or
filtered, and • Total coliform 1 day; storage period hydrogeologic well other areas
disinfected and dissolved long-term, required for characteristics, • Lined where the
• Total coliform oxygen 20 days duration of a and other impoundments public has
- 2.2/100 ml - grab samples • Multiple 10-year storm, considerations - 100 feet similar access
(7-day mean) collected at treatment units using a between or exposure to
- 23/100 ml least daily or storage or minimum of 20 perimeter and the reclaimed
(single sample) • Continuous disposal years of any potable water) and use
Landscape on-line options climatic data water supply in decorative
impoundment monitoring of • Qualified • At a minimum, well fountains and
and construction turbidity personnel system storage landscape
uses: available or on capacity impoundments

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
• Class C - call at all times should be the • Also includes
oxidized and the irrigation volume equal use for street
disinfected system is to 3 times that cleaning,
• Total coliform operating portion of the construction,
- 23/100 ml average daily fire protection
(7-day mean) flow for which in hydrants or
- 240/100 ml no alternative sprinkler
(single sample) reuse or systems, toilet
General disposal flushing in
compliance system is commercial or
requirements: permitted industrial
• 30 mg/l BOD facilities and in
and TSS apartments
(monthly and condos
mean) where the
• Turbidity residents do
- 2 NTU not have
(monthly) access to the
- 5 NTU plumbing
310
(not to exceed system

at any time)
• Minimum
chlorine
residual of
1 mg/l after a
contact time of
30 minutes
Wyoming • Minimum of • Treated • Multiple units • Emergency • Will be applied • 30 feet to • Pertains to
Class A wastewater to and equipment storage for the purpose adjacent land with a
wastewater - be analyzed • Alternative of beneficial property lines high potential
advanced for fecal power sources reuse and will • 30 feet to all for public
treatment coliform, • Alarm systems not exceed the surface waters exposure
and/or nitrate as N, and irrigation • 100-feet to all
secondary ammonia as N, instrumenta- demand of the potable water
treatment and and pH at a tion vegetation at supply wells
disinfection minimum • Operator the site • 100-foot buffer
• Fecal coliform • Monitoring certification • Not to be zone around
- 2.2/100 ml or frequency and standby applied at a spray site
less - once per capability rate greater
month for • Bypass and than the

Reclaimed Reclaimed
(1) (1) (1) (2)
lagoon dewatering agronomic rate
systems capability for the
- once per • Emergency vegetation at
week for storage the site
mechanical • Will be applied
systems in a manner
• Frequency and time that
specified in will not cause
NPDES permit any surface
required if runoff or
more frequent contamination
of a
groundwater
aquifer
311

Table A-2. Restricted Urban Reuse
Reclaimed Water
Quality and Reclaimed Water
Treatment Monitoring Treatment Storage Loading Groundwater Setback
(1)
State Requirements Requirements Facility Reliability Requirements Rates Monitoring Distances Other
Alabama • Minimum EPA • Controls • Based on • Based on soil • At least three • 100 feet to • Disinfection
secondary, or required to water balance permeability downgradient property lines required for
equivalent to indicate any performed on a and nitrogen monitoring • 300 feet to public access
secondary, system monthly basis limits (10 mg/l wells existing areas such as
limits and malfunction or with a nitrate) • At least one habitable golf courses
appropriate permit varied precipitation • Excessive upgradient residences • May use
disinfection field operations input using a rainwater run- monitoring well • Spray irrigation breakpoint
• If wastewater 5-year, 24- off should be • Contaminants not allowed chlorination
stabilization hour rainfall diverted in groundwater within 100 feet with rapid,
pond is used, event, 30-year • Excessive not to exceed of any uniform mixing
pond must minimum base ponding should primary and perennial lake to a free
meet ADEM period be avoided secondary or stream chlorine
requirements • In addition to maximum • If irrigation residual of
with second storage contaminant causes an 2 mg/l at a
cell being used dictated by levels intermittent contact period
as a holding water balance, • Minimum stream to of 30 minutes
pond a minimum of depth to become at average
• Mechanical 15 days groundwater, perennial, the daily flow rate
systems, if storage should without use of irrigation must • May use
used, should be provided for an underdrain cease within ozonation or
312
allow as little contingencies collection 100 feet of the ultraviolet

nitrification as system, shall stream disinfection
possible be 4 feet • Spray irrigation systems; a
• Disinfection not allowed in geometric
must be wellhead mean limit of
performed protection area 126/100 ml for
through one of (WHPA 1) – if E. Coli, or
the following no wellhead 33/ 100 ml for
processes delineation enterococci
- breakpoint exists, bacteria will be
chlorination, minimum required; the
ozonation, or distance for total
ultraviolet application suspended
disinfection shall be 1,000 solids
- storage of the feet or as concentration
treated required of the effluent,
wastewater for • No sites within prior to
a period of 20 100-year disinfection,
days in a floodplain must be no
holding pond more than
prior to 5 mg/l which
Reclaimed Water
(1)
discharge to may require
the application installation of a
site filtration
process
Arizona • Class B • Case-by-case • Application • Includes
reclaimed basis rates based on irrigation of
water - either the golf courses
secondary water allotment and other
treatment and assigned by restricted
disinfection the Arizona access
• Fecal coliform Department of landscapes
- 200/100 ml Water • Application
(not to exceed Resources (a methods that
in 4 of the last water balance reasonably
7 daily that considers preclude
samples) consumptive human contact
- 800/100 ml use of water by with reclaimed
(single sample the crop, turf, water will be
maximum) or landscape used when
vegetation) or irrigating
313
an alternative
approved
method
Arkansas • Secondary • As required by • Based on • Hydraulic - 0.5 • Required • Determined on
treatment and regulatory water balance to 4.0 in/wk • One well case-by-case
disinfection agency using divisional • Nitrogen - upgradient basis
average percolate • One well within
annual 90 nitrate-nitrogen site
percentile not to exceed • One well
rainfall 10 mg/l downgradient
• More wells
may be
required on a
case-by-case
basis
California • Disinfected • Total coliform - • Warning • No irrigation • Includes
secondary-23 sampled at alarms with, or landscape
recycled water least once • Back-up power impoundment irrigation of
- oxidized and daily from the source of, disinfected cemeteries,
disinfected disinfected • Multiple secondary-23 freeway
• Total coliform effluent treatment units recycled water landscapes,
Reclaimed Water
(1)
- 23/100 ml capable of within 100 feet and restricted
(7-day median) treating entire of any access golf
- 240/100 ml flow with one domestic water courses
(not to exceed unit not in supply well
in more than operation or • No spray
one sample in storage or irrigation within
any 30-day disposal 100 feet of a
period) provisions residence or a
• Emergency place where
storage or public
disposal: short- exposure could
term, 1 day; be similar to
long-term, that of a park,
20 days playground, or
• Sufficient schoolyard
number of
qualified
personnel
Colorado • Secondary Treaters: • Application • No
treatment with • Quality of rates shall impoundment
314
disinfection reclaimed protect surface or irrigation of

• E. coli - domestic and reclaimed
126/100 ml wastewater groundwater water within
(monthly produced and quality and 100 feet of any
average) delivered at irrigation shall well used for
- 235/100 ml the point of be controlled domestic
(single sample compliance to minimize supply unless,
maximum in Applicators: ponding in the case of
any calendar • Total volume an
month) of reclaimed impoundment,
• 30 mg/l TSS domestic it is lined with a
as a daily wastewater synthetic
maximum applied per material with a
year or season permeability of
-6
• The maximum 10 cm/sec or
monthly less
volume applied
• Each location
with the
associated
acreage where
Reclaimed Water
(1)
reclaimed
domestic
wastewater
was applied
• The beginning
and end time
for each date
that reclaimed
domestic
wastewater is
applied
Delaware • Biological • Continuous on- • Storage • Maximum • Required • Determined on • Regulations
treatment and line monitoring provisions design • One well a case-by-case pertain to sites
disinfection of residual required either wastewater upgradient of basis limited to
• 30 mg/l BOD5 disinfection as a separate loadings site or public access
• 30 mg/l TSS concentrations facility or limited to otherwise at specific
• Fecal coliform • Parameters incorporated 2.5 in/wk outside the periods of time
- 200/100 ml which may into the • Maximum influence of the
require pretreatment instantaneous site for
monitoring system wastewater background
• Minimum 15
315
include volume application monitoring

of water days storage rates limited to • One well within
applied to required 0.25 in/hour wetted field
spray fields, unless other • Design area of each
BOD, measures for wastewater drainage basin
suspended controlling flow loading must intersected by
solids, fecal are be determined site
coliform demonstrated as a function of • Two wells
bacteria, pH, • Must determine precipitation, down-gradient
COD, TOC, operational, evapotrans- in each
ammonia wet weather, piration, design drainage basin
nitrogen, and water percolation intersected by
nitrate balance rate, nitrogen site
nitrogen, total storage loading and • One well
Kjeldahl requirements other upgradient and
nitrogen, total • Separate off- constituent One well
phosphorus, line system for loading downgradient
chloride, Na, storage of limitations, of the pond
K, Ca, Mg, reject groundwater treatment and
metals, and wastewater and drainage storage
priority with a conditions, and facilities in
Reclaimed Water
(1)
pollutants minimum average and each drainage
• Parameters capacity equal peak design basin
and sampling to 2-day wastewater intersected by
frequency average daily flows and site
determined on design flow seasonal • May require
a case-by-case required fluctuations measurement
basis of depth to
groundwater,
pH, COD,
TOC, nitrate
nitrogen, total
phosphorus,
electrical
conductivity,
chloride, fecal
coliform
bacteria,
metals, and
priority
pollutants
•
316
Parameters
and sampling
frequency
determined on
a case-by-case
basis
Florida • Secondary • Parameters to • Class I • At a minimum, • Site specific • Required • 75 feet to • Rules do not
treatment with be monitored reliability - system storage • Design • One potable water differentiate
filtration and and sampling requires capacity shall hydraulic upgradient well supply wells between
high-level frequency to multiple or be the volume loading rate - located as • 75 feet from unrestricted
disinfection be identified in back-up equal to 3 maximum close as reclaimed and restricted
• Chemical feed wastewater treatment units times the annual possible to the water urban reuse
facilities to be facility permit and a portion of the average of site without transmission • Tank trucks
provided • Minimum secondary average daily 2 in/wk is being affected facility to public can be used to
• 20 mg/l schedule for power source flow for which recommended by the site’s water supply apply
CBOD5 sampling and • Minimum no alternative • Based on discharge well reclaimed
(annual testing based reject storage reuse or nutrient and (background • Low trajectory water if
average) on system capacity equal disposal water balance well) nozzles requirements
• 5 mg/l TSS capacity to 1 day flow at system is assessments • One well at the required within are met
(single sample) established for the average permitted edge of the 100 feet of • Cross-
• Total chlorine flow, pH, daily design • Water balance zone of outdoor public connection
Reclaimed Water
(1)
residual of at chlorine flow of the required with discharge eating, control and
least 1 mg/l residual, treatment plant volume of downgradient drinking, and inspection
after a dissolved or the average storage based of the site bathing program
minimum oxygen, daily permitted on a 10-year (compliance facilities required
acceptable suspended flow of the recurrence well) • 100 feet from
contact time of solids, CBOD5, reuse system, interval and a • One well indoor
15 minutes at nutrients, and whichever is minimum of 20 downgradient aesthetic
peak hourly fecal coliform less years of from the site features using
flow • Continuous • Minimum climatic data and within the reclaimed
• Fecal coliform on-line system size of • Not required if zone of water to
- over 30-day monitoring of 0.1 mgd (not alternative discharge adjacent
period, 75 turbidity prior required for system is (intermediate indoor public
percent of to disinfection toilet flushing incorporated well) eating and
samples below • Continuous and fire into the system • One well drinking
detection limits on-line protection design to located facilities
- 25/100 ml monitoring of uses) ensure adjacent to • 200 feet from
(single sample) total chlorine • Staffing - continuous unlined unlined
• pH 6 - 8.5 residual or 24 hrs/day, facility storage ponds storage ponds
• Limitations to residual 7 days/wk or operation or lakes to potable
be met after concentrations 6 hrs/day, • Existing or • Other wells water supply
317
disinfection of other 7 days/wk with proposed lakes may be wells

disinfectants diversion of or ponds (such required
• Monitoring for reclaimed as golf course depending on
Giardia and water to reuse ponds) are site-specific
Cryptosporidium system only appropriate for criteria
based on during periods storage if it will • Quarterly
treatment plant of operator not impair the monitoring
capacity presence ability of the required for
- > 1 mgd, lakes or ponds water level,
each two-year management solids, arsenic,
- < 1 mgd , • Aquifer chloride,
each 5-year allowed as coliform, pH,
be taken may be
Reclaimed Water
(1)
process based on site-
be monitored
by facilities >
100,000 gpd
318

• Turbidity not to residual supply or at the
turbidity irrigated
3 NTU causing harm
to the cover
crop
Reclaimed Water
(1)
- An NPDES
permit for all or
part of the flow
Hawaii • R-2 water - • Daily flow • Multiple or • 20 days • Design • Required R-2 water: • R-2 water can
oxidized and monitoring standby units storage application rate • Groundwater • For spray be used for
disinfected • Continuous required with required determined by monitoring irrigation spray irrigation
• Fecal coliform turbidity sufficient unless it can water balance system may applications, of freeway and
- 23/100 ml monitoring capacity to be consist of a 500 feet to cemetery
(7-day median) prior to and enable demonstrated number of residence landscapes
- 200/100 ml after filtration effective that another lysimeters property or a and other
(not to exceed process operation with time period is and/or place where areas where
in more than • Continuous any one unit adequate or monitoring public access is
one sample in measuring and out of service that no storage wells exposure could controlled
any 30-day recording of • Alarm devices is necessary depending on be similar to • If alternative
period) chlorine required for • Storage site size, site that at a park, application
• Theoretical residual loss of power, requirements characteristics, elementary methods are
chlorine • Daily high water based on location, schoolyard, or used, such as
contact time of monitoring of levels, failure water balance method of athletic field subsurface,
15 minutes fecal coliform of pumps or using at least a discharge. and • Minimum of drip or surface
and actual • Weekly blowers, high 30-year record other 100 feet to any irrigation, a
•
319
modal contact monitoring of head loss on Reject storage appropriate drinking water lesser quality
time of 10 BOD5 and filters, high required with a considerations supply well reclaimed
minutes suspended effluent volume equal • One well • Outer edge of water may be
throughout solids turbidity, loss to 1 day of flow upgradient and impoundment suitable
which the of coagulant or at the average two wells at least 300 • R-2 water
chlorine polymer feed, daily design downgradient feet from any used in spray
residual is and loss of flow for project sites drinking water irrigation will
0.5 mg/l chlorine • Emergency 500 acres or supply well be performed
residual system storage more when the area
• Standby power not required • One well within is closed to the
source where an the wetted field public and the
required for alternate area for each public is
treatment plant effluent project whose absent from
and distribution disposal surface area is the area, and
pump stations system has greater than or will end at
been approved equal to 1,500 least 1 hour
acres before the area
• One lysimeter is open to the
per 200 acres public
• One lysimeter • Subsurface
for project sites irrigation may
Reclaimed Water
(1)
that have be performed
greater than 40 at any time
but less than
200 acres
• Additional
lysimeters may
be necessary
to address
public health or
environmental
protection
concerns
related to
variable
characteristics
of the
subsurface or
of the
operations of
the project
• Oxidized and • Includes
320
Idaho
disinfected irrigation of
• Total coliform golf courses,
- 23/100 ml (7 cemeteries,
day median) roadside
vegetation,
and other
areas where
individuals
have access or
exposure
• Irrigation to be
accomplished
during periods
of non-use
Illinois • Two-cell • Minimum • Based on the • Required • 25 feet to any
lagoon system storage limiting • One well residential lot
with tertiary capacity equal characteristic upgradient for line if
sand filtration to at least 150 of the treated determining surrounded by
and days of wastewater background a fence with a
disinfection or wastewater at and the site concentrations minimum
Reclaimed Water
(1)
mechanical design • Balances must • Two wells height of 40
secondary average flow be calculated downgradient inches
treatment with except in and submitted in the • No buffer
disinfection southern for water, dominant required if
Illinois areas nitrogen, direction of irrigation of
where a phosphorus, groundwater golf course
minimum of and BOD movement occurs only
120 days of • Wells between during the
storage each potable hours between
capacity to be water well and dusk and dawn
provided the application • No buffer
• Storage can area if within required if the
be determined 1,000 feet application and
based on a • Monitoring of its associated
rational design nitrates, drying time
that must ammonia occur during a
include nitrogen, period when
capacity for the chlorides, the area is
wettest year sulfates, pH, closed to the
with a 20-year total dissolved public
321
return solids,
and coliform
bacteria
Indiana • Secondary • Daily • Alternate • Minimum of 9 • Maximum • 200 feet to • Public access
treatment and monitoring of power source days effective hydraulic potable water to be restricted
disinfection TSS, coliform, required storage loading rate of supply wells or for 30 days
• 30 mg/l BOD5 and chlorine capacity 2 in/week drinking water after land
• 30 mg/l TSS residual required springs application of
• Fecal coliform • Weekly • 300 feet to any wastewater
- 200/100 ml monitoring of waters of the
(7-day median) BOD and pH state
- 800/100 ml • Monthly • 300 feet to any
(single sample) monitoring of residence
• pH 6 - 9 total nitrogen,
• Total chlorine ammonium
residual after a nitrogen,
minimum nitrate
contact time of nitrogen,
30 minutes at phosphorus,
least 1 mg/l (if and potassium
Reclaimed Water
(1)
chlorination is • Annual
used for monitoring of
disinfection) arsenic,
cadmium,
copper, lead,
mercury,
nickel,
selenium, and
zinc
Iowa • At a minimum, • Monitoring of • Minimum of • Minimum days • Determined by • Monitoring • 300 feet to • Categorized as
treatment the following two storage of storage using a water required existing land
equivalent to parameters cells required based on balance per adjacent to the dwellings or application
that obtained required capable of climatic month of site both public use using slow rate
from a primary unless it has series and restraints operation upstream and areas (not system
lagoon cell been parallel • When flows downstream of including roads (irrigation)
• Disinfection demonstrated operation are generated the site in and highways) • Application to
- required for that they are only during the reference to • 400 feet to any public use
all land present in application the general existing areas given as
application insignificant period, a groundwater potable water example of
systems with amounts in the storage flow direction supply well not permissible
322
spray irrigation influent capacity of 45 located on application

application wastewater: days or the property with
technique total organic flow generated • 300 feet to any requirements
- must precede carbon, total during the structure, - public not
actual spraying dissolved period of continuous allowed into an
of the solids, sodium operation flowing stream, area when
wastewater on absorption (whichever is or other spraying is
to a field area ratio, electrical less) must be physiographic being
and must not conductivity, provided feature that conducted
precede total nitrogen, • When may provide - any drinking
storage ammonia discharging to direct water fountains
- minimum nitrogen, a receiving connection located on or
contact time of organic waterway on a between the near the
15 minutes nitrogen, periodic basis, groundwater application
with equipment nitrate storage for 180 table and the area must be
necessary to nitrogen, total days of surface protected
maintain a phosphorus, average wet • Wetted - for golf
residual chloride, pH, weather flow is disposal area courses using
chlorine level alkalinity, required to be at least “wastewater”,
of 0.5 mg/l hardness, 50 feet inside notice of its
trace the property use must be
Reclaimed Water
(1)
elements, and line of the land given and
coliform application site warning signs
bacteria • 1,000 feet to posted
• Location of any shallow
monitoring in public water
effluent prior to supply well
site application • 500 feet to any
• Reporting public lake or
frequency impoundment
depends on • _ mile to any
size of system public lake or
impoundment
used as a
source of raw
water by a
potable water
supply
Kansas • Secondary • Storage • Maximum daily • Site specific • None required • Projected uses
treatment and provided to application rate • May be include
disinfection for retain a of 3 in/ac/day required irrigation of
• Maximum
323
irrigation of minimum of golf courses or

areas with a 90-days annual public parks
low probability average dry application rate with a low
of body contact weather flow of 40 in/acre probability of
when no • Based on soil body contact
discharge to and crop
surface water moisture
is available and/or nutrient
requirements
of selected
crop
Maryland • 70 mg/l BOD • Minimum of • Maximum • May be • 200 feet to • Pertains to golf
• 90 mg/l TSS 60-days application rate required property lines, course
• Fecal coliform storage to be of 2 in/wk on • One well waterways, irrigation
- 3/100 ml provided for all annual upgradient of and roads for
• pH 6.5 - 8.5 systems average basis site spray irrigation
receiving • Water balance • Two wells • 500 feet to
wastewater required based adjacent to the housing
flows on wettest year property line developments
throughout the in the last 10 and and parks for
Reclaimed Water
(1)
year years of record downgradient spray irrigation
• Actual of site • Reduction of
application rate • Monitoring the buffer zone
accepted must frequency up to 50
consider determined on percent will be
permeability of a case-by-case considered
the soils, depth basis with adequate
to windbreak
groundwater, • Minimum
and the buffer zone of
nutrient 50 feet for all
balance of the other types of
site slow rate
systems
Massachusetts • Secondary • pH - daily • EPA Class I • Immediate, • Required • 100 feet to • Includes the
treatment with • BOD - weekly Reliability permitted • Monitoring buildings, irrigation of
filtration and • Turbidity - standards may discharge wells to be residential golf courses
disinfection continuous be required alternatives located and property, • Spray irrigation
• pH 6 - 9 monitoring • Two are required constructed to private wells, must take
• 10 mg/l BOD5 prior to independent for emergency strategically Class A place during
• Turbidity
324
disinfection and separate situations and sample the surface water non-
- 2 NTU • Fecal coliform sources of for non- geologic units bodies, and operational
(average over - daily power growing of interest surface water hours and
24-hour • Disinfection • Unit season between the intakes cannot result in
period) - 5 UV intensity - redundancy disposal discharges and • Other than for any ponding
NTU (not to daily or • Additional sensitive private wells,
exceed at any chlorine storage receptors and using a green
time) residual - daily withdrawal barrier in the
• Fecal coliform • TSS - twice points form of hedges
- no detectable per week • Sensitive or trees placed
colonies • Nitrogen - receptors at the dwelling
(7-day median) twice per include, but side of the
- 14/100 ml month are not limited buffer may
(single sample) • Phosphorus - to public and reduce the
• 5 mg/l TSS twice per private wells, setback
• 10 mg/l total month surface waters, distance to
nitrogen • Heterotrophic embayments, 50 feet
• Class I plate count - and ACECs • No spray
groundwater quarterly • Monitoring and irrigation
permit • MS-2 phage - testing directed into
standards quarterly frequency and Zone I of
Reclaimed Water
(1)
(SDWA • Permit parameters public water
Drinking Water standards - determined supply wells
Standards) variable testing based on land
requirements use, effluent
quality and
quantity, and
the sensitivity
of receptors
Missouri • Secondary • Minimum of 45 • Application • Minimum of • 150 feet to • Public
treatment days in south rates shall in one well existing restricted from
equivalent to with no no case between site dwellings or area during
treatment discharge exceed and public public use application
obtained from • Minimum of 90 - 0.5 in/hour supply well areas,
primary days in north - 1.0 in/day excluding
wastewater with no - 3.0 in/week roads or
pond cell discharge • Maximum highways
• Disinfected • Based on the annual • 50 feet to
prior to design application rate property lines
application (not wastewater not to exceed • 300 feet to
storage) flows and net a range from 4 potable water
• Total residual
325
rainfall minus to 10 percent supply wells

chlorine of evaporation of the design not on
0.5 mg/l after expected for a sustained property,
15 minutes of one in 10-year permeability sinkholes, and
contact time at return rate for the losing streams
peak flow frequency for number of or other
• Fecal coliform the storage days per year structure or
- 200/100 ml period selected when soils are physiographic
not frozen feature that
• Nitrogen may provide
loading not to direct
exceed the connection
amount of between the
nitrogen that groundwater
can be used by table and the
the vegetation surface
to be grown
Montana • Oxidized and • Effluent to be • Nitrogen and • Determined on • Buffer zones • Includes
disinfected monitored on hydraulic a case-by-case determined on landscape
• Fecal coliform a regular basis loadings basis a case-by-case irrigation of
- 200/100 ml to show the determined • Consideration basis if less golf courses,
Reclaimed Water
(1)
(7-day median) biochemical based on is given to than 200 feet cemeteries,
- 400/100 ml and methods in groundwater • If low trajectory freeway
(any two bacteriological EPA Manual characteristics, nozzles are landscapes,
consecutive quality of the 625/1-81-013 past practices, used, the and
samples) applied • Hydraulic depth to buffer zone landscapes in
wastewater loading must groundwater, can be other areas
• Monitoring be based on cropping reduced to where the
frequency to the wettest practices, etc. 50 feet public has
be determined year in ten • 100 feet to any similar access
on a case-by- years water supply or exposure
case basis well • Public access
• Distance to must be
surface water restricted
determined on during the
a case-by-case period of
basis based on application
quality of
effluent and
the level of
disinfection
• Biological • Site specific • Hydraulic • Site specific • Includes
326
Nebraska
treatment loading rate irrigation of
• Disinfected should not golf courses
prior to exceed 4 in/wk and other
application • Nitrogen public use
• Fecal coliform loading not to areas
limit to be exceed crop
established uptake
Nevada • At a minimum, • None or 100 • Uses include
secondary foot minimum irrigation of
treatment with buffer required golf courses,
disinfection depending on cemeteries, or
• 30 mg/l BOD5 level of greenbelts
No buffer zone: disinfection where public
• Fecal coliform access to the
- 2.2/100 ml site being
(30-day irrigated is
geometric controlled and
mean) human contact
- 23/100 ml with the
(maximum treated effluent
Reclaimed Water
(1)
daily number) does not occur
100’ buffer zone: or cannot
• Fecal coliform reasonably be
- 23/100 ml expected
(30-day
geometric
mean)
- 240/100 ml
(maximum
daily number)
New Jersey • Fecal coliform • Continuous • Not required • Hydraulic • 75 feet to • Secondary
- 2.2/100 ml on-line when another loading rate potable water treatment, for
(7-day median) monitoring of permitted - maximum supply wells the purpose of
- 14/100 ml chlorine reuse system annual that are the manual,
(maximum any residual or effluent average of existing or refers to the
one sample) produced disposal 2 in/wk but have been existing
• Minimum oxidant at the system is may be approved for treatment
chlorine compliance incorporated increased construction requirements
residual monitoring into the system based on a • 75 feet in the NJPDES
- 1.0 mg/l after point design site-specific provided from permit, not
327
15-minute • For spray • If system evaluation a reclaimed including the

contact at peak irrigation, storage ponds • The spray water additional
hourly flow chlorination are used, they irrigation of transmission reclaimed
• Alternative levels for do not have to reclaimed facility to all water for
methods of disinfection be lined water shall not potable water beneficial
disinfection, should be • Reject storage produce supply wells reuse
such as UV continually ponds shall be surface runoff • 100 feet from treatment
and ozone, evaluated to lined or sealed or ponding outdoor public requirements
may be ensure to prevent eating, • A chlorine
approved chlorine measurable drinking, and residual of
• TSS not to residual levels seepage bathing 0.5 mg/l or
exceed 5 mg/l do not • Existing or facilities greater is
before adversely proposed recommended
disinfection impact ponds (such as to reduce
• Total nitrogen vegetation golf course odors, slime,
- 10 mg/l but • Continuous ponds) are and bacterial
may be less monitoring for appropriate for re-growth
stringent if turbidity before storage of
higher limit is disinfection is reuse water if
still protective required the ability of
of environment • Operating the ponds to
Reclaimed Water
(1)
• Secondary protocol function as
• Filtration required stormwater
• Chemical • User/Supplier management
addition prior Agreement systems is not
to filtration may • Annual usage impaired
be necessary report
New Mexico • Adequately • Fecal coliform • Includes

treated and sample taken irrigation of
disinfected at point of freeway
• Fecal coliform diversion to landscapes
of 1000/100 ml irrigation and
system landscapes in
other areas
where the
public has
similar access
or exposure
North Carolina • Tertiary quality • Continuous • All essential • Determined • Site specific • 100 feet to any • Uses include
effluent on-line treatment units using a mass • Application surface waters irrigation of
328
(filtered or monitoring and to be provided water balance rate may take classified SA, golf courses,
equivalent) recording for in duplicate based upon a both the including cemeteries,
• TSS turbidity or • Five-day side- recent 25-year maximum soil wetlands industrial or
- 5 mg/l particle count stream period using absorption and • 25 feet to any commercial
(monthly and flow prior detention pond monthly water needs of surface water site grounds,
average) to discharge required for average the receiving not classified landscape
- 10 mg/l (daily effluent precipitation crop into SA, including areas, highway
maximum) exceeding data, potential consideration wetlands and medians, and
• Fecal coliform turbidity or evapotrans- any swimming roadways
- 14/100 ml fecal coliform piration data, pool
(monthly limits and soil • 100 feet to any
geometric • Automatically drainage data water supply
mean) activated • No storage well
- 25/100 ml standby power facilities • 10 feet to any
(daily source to be required if it nonpotable
maximum) provided can be well
• BOD5 • Certified demonstrated
- 10 mg/l operator 24 that other
(monthly hours/day with permitted
average) a grade level disposal
- 15 mg/l (daily equivalent to options are
Reclaimed Water
(1)
maximum) or greater than available
• NH3 the facility
- 4 mg/l classification
(monthly on call
average)
- 6 mg/l (daily
maximum)
exceed 10
NTU at any
time
North Dakota • At a minimum, • BOD5 and TSS • Use applies to
secondary monitoring irrigation of
treatment once every 2 public property
• 25 mg/l BOD5 weeks such as parks
• 30 mg/l TSS • Fecal coliform and golf
• Fecal coliform - twice weekly courses
- 200/100 ml for mechanical • Irrigation
plants should take
- once per place during
329
week for hours when

lagoon the public does
systems not have
access to the
area being
irrigated
Ohio • Biological Large system • Operational • Determined by • Monitoring • 100 feet to
treatment monitoring storage of 4 calculating a wells private water
• Disinfection (150,000 to times the daily water and upgradient and well
should be 500,000 gpd): design flow nutrient downgradient • 300 feet to
considered • Twice weekly needed balance of large community
• 40 mg/l for CBOD5, • Storage irrigation water well
CBOD5 total coliform provisions for systems • 100 feet to
• Fecal coliform (when at least 130 • Monitoring sink hole
(30-day irrigating) and days of design wells should • 50 feet to
average) storage average flow be sampled at drainage way
- 23/100 ml volume needed for the beginning • 50 feet to
with no public • Monthly periods when and the end of surface water
access buffer monitoring for irrigation is not the irrigation • 100 feet to
- 200/100 ml total inorganic recommended season road right-of-
with 100-foot nitrogen • Actual storage way without
Reclaimed Water
(1)
public access • Daily requirements windbreak
buffer monitoring for determined by using spray
- 1,000/100 ml flow performing irrigation
with 200 foot Small system water balance • 10 feet to road
public access monitoring • Permits can be right-of-way
buffer (<150,000 gpd): obtained for with windbreak
• Limits for • Weekly stream or with flood
metals monitoring of discharge irrigation
CBOD5, total during winter • 50 feet to
coliform (when and times of property line
irrigating) and high stream
storage flow to reduce
volume storage needs
• Daily
monitoring of
flow
Oklahoma • Secondary • Standby power • Required for • Based on the • 100 feet to • Applies to
treatment and required for periods when lower of the adjacent multi-purpose
disinfection continuity of available two rates property use areas such
operation wastewater calculated for • Additional as golf courses
• Wastewater to
330
during power exceeds soil distance may

failures design permeability be required be applied
hydraulic and nitrogen where during times of
loading rate, requirements prevailing non-use
and when the winds could • No wastewater
ground is cause aerosols applied in
saturated or to drift into public use
frozen residential areas with high
• Based on areas potential for
water balance • Buffer zone to skin to ground
• Must provide be a part of the contact
at least 90 permitted site
days of
storage above
that required
for primary
treatment
Oregon • Level II - • Total coliform • Standby power • 10-foot buffer • Includes
biological sampling with capacity with surface irrigation of
treatment and - 1 time per to fully operate irrigation golf courses
disinfection week all essential • 70-foot buffer without
Reclaimed Water
(1)
• Total coliform treatment with spray contiguous
- 240/100 ml processes irrigation residences,
(2 consecutive • Redundant • No spray cemeteries,
samples) treatment irrigation within highway
- 23/100 ml facilities and 100 feet of medians, and
(7-day median) monitoring drinking landscapes
equipment to fountains or without
meet required food frequent public
levels of preparation access
treatment areas
• Alarm devices
to provide
warning of loss
of power
and/or failure
of process
equipment
South Carolina • Secondary • Nitrate • Hydraulic - • Required • 200 feet to • Applies to
treatment and monitoring maximum of • One well surface waters irrigation of
disinfection required 0.5 - 2 in/wk upgradient of the state, golf courses
• BOD5 and TSS • Two wells
331
depending on occupied
- 30 mg/l depth to downgradient buildings, and
(monthly groundwater • A minimum of potable water
average) • A nitrate to 9 wells are wells
- 45 mg/l nitrogen suggested for • 75 feet to
(weekly loading each 18 property
average) balance may fairways boundary
• Total coliform be required
- 200/100 ml • Application
(monthly rates in excess
average) of 2 in/wk may
- 400/100 ml be approved
(daily provided the
maximum) application is
only for a
portion of the
year; requires
a water
balance for the
summer
season
Reclaimed Water
(1)
South Dakota • Secondary • Minimum of • Maximum • Shallow wells
treatment and 210 days application rate in all directions
disinfection capacity limited to of major
• Total coliform without 2 in/acre/wk or groundwater
- 200/100 ml consideration a total of flow from site
(geometric for evaporation 24 in/acre/yr and no more
mean) than 200 feet
outside of the
site perimeter,
spaced no
more than 500
feet apart, and
extending into
the
groundwater
table
• Shallow wells
within the site
are also
recommended
• Biological • Site specific • Storage • Nitrogen - • Required • Pertains to
332
Tennessee Surface Irrigation:

treatment requirements percolate • 100 feet to site irrigation of
• Additional determined by nitrate-nitrogen boundary golf courses,
treatment either of two not to exceed • 50 feet to cemeteries,
requirements methods, 1) 10 mg/l onsite streams, and other
are determined use of water • Hydraulic - ponds, and public and
on a case-by- balance based on roads private land
case basis calculations or, water balance Spray Irrigation: where public
• Disinfection 2) use of a using 5-year [1] Open Fields use occurs or
required computer return monthly • 300 feet to site is expected to
• 30 mg/l BOD5 program that precipitation boundary occur
and TSS was developed • 150 feet to
(monthly based upon an onsite streams,
average) extensive ponds, and
• Fecal coliform NOAA study of roads
- 200/100 ml climatic [2] Forested
United States • 75 feet to
onsite streams,
ponds, and
Reclaimed Water
(1)
roads
Texas • Type II • Sampling and • Based on • Type II
reclaimed analysis once water balance reclaimed
water per week for water use
Reclaimed water BOD5 or defined as use
on a 30-day CBOD5 and of reclaimed
average to have fecal coliform water where
a quality of: contact
• 30 mg/l BOD5 between
with treatment humans and
using pond the reclaimed
system water is
• 20 mg/l BOD5 unlikely
or 15 mg/l • Uses include
CBOD5 with irrigation of
treatment other limited access
than pond highway rights-
system of-way and
• Fecal coliform other areas
- 200/100 ml where human
333
(geometric access is
mean) restricted or
- 800/100 ml unlikely to
(not to exceed occur
in any sample) • Use of
reclaimed
water for soil
compaction
and dust
control in
construction
areas where
application
procedures
minimize
aerosol drift to
public areas
also included
Utah • Type II treated • Weekly • Alternative • 300 feet to any • Uses allowed
wastewater - composite disposal option potable water include
secondary sampling or diversion to well irrigation of
Reclaimed Water
(1)
treatment with required for storage • 300 feet to highway rights-
disinfection BOD required in areas intended of-way and
• 25 mg/l BOD • Daily case quality for public other areas
(monthly composite requirements access where human
average) sampling not met • Impoundments access is
• TSS required for at least 500 restricted or
- 25 mg/l TSS feet from any unlikely to
(monthly • Daily potable water occur
average) monitoring of well • Also allows
- 35 mg/l fecal coliform • Public access use of
(weekly mean) • pH monitored to effluent reclaimed
• Fecal coliform continuously or storage and water for soil
- 200/100 ml by daily grab irrigation or compaction or
(weekly samples disposal sites dust control in
median) to be restricted construction
- 800/100 ml by a stocktight areas
(not to exceed fence or other
in any sample) comparable
• pH 6 – 9 means
Washington • Class C - • BOD – 24-hour • Warning • Storage • Hydraulic • May be • 50 feet to • Uses include
334
oxidized and composite alarms required when loading rate to required areas irrigation of
disinfected samples independent of no approved be determined • Monitoring accessible to restricted
• Total coliform collected at normal power alternative based on a program will be the public and access areas
- 23/100 ml least weekly supply disposal detailed water based on use area such as
(7-day mean) • TSS – 24-hour • Back-up power system exists balance reclaimed property line freeway
- 240/100 ml composite source • Storage analysis water quality • 100 feet to any landscapes, or
(single sample) samples • Emergency volume and quantity, potable water other areas
General collected at storage: short- established by site specific supply well where the
compliance least daily term, 1 day; determining soil and public has
requirements: • Total coliform long-term, 20 storage period hydrogeologic similar access
• 30 mg/l BOD and dissolved days required for characteristics, or exposure to
and TSS oxygen • Multiple duration of a and other the reclaimed
(monthly - grab samples treatment units 10-year storm, considerations water
mean) collected at or storage or using a
• Turbidity least daily disposal minimum of 20
- 2 NTU • Continuous options years of
(monthly) on-line • Qualified climatic data
- 5 NTU monitoring of personnel • At a minimum,
(not to exceed turbidity available or on system storage
at any time) call at all times capacity
• Minimum the irrigation should be the
Reclaimed Water
(1)
chlorine system is volume equal
residual of operating to 3 times that
1 mg/l after a portion of the
contact time of average daily
30 minutes flow for which
no alternative
reuse or
disposal
system is
permitted
Class B wastewater to and equipment storage for the purpose adjacent land that is
wastewater- be analyzed • Alternative of beneficial property lines accessible to
secondary for fecal power sources reuse and will • 30 feet to all the public but
treatment and coliform, • Alarm systems not exceed the surface waters with limited
disinfection nitrate as N, and irrigation • 100 feet to all access during
• Fecal coliform ammonia as N, instrumenta- demand of the potable water irrigation
- greater than and pH at a tion vegetation at supply wells periods
2.2/100 ml but minimum • Operator the site
less than • Monitoring certification • Not to be
335
200/100 ml frequency and standby applied at a

- once per capability rate greater
systems in a manner
of a
groundwater
aquifer
Table A-3. Agricultural Reuse – Food Crops
Reclaimed Water
State Requirements Requirements Facility Reliability Requirements Rates Monitoring Distances (1) Other
Arizona Class A • Case-by-case • Application • Class A
• Secondary either the water required
treatment, water allotment for spray
filtration and assigned by irrigation of
disinfection the Arizona food crops and
• Chemical feed Department of orchards or
facilities Water vineyards
required to add Resources (a • Class B
coagulants or water balance reclaimed
polymers if that considers water suitable
necessary to consumptive for surface
meet turbidity use of water by irrigation of
criterion the crop, turf, orchards or
• Turbidity or landscape vineyards
- 2 NTU (24- vegetation) or
hour average) an alternative
- 5 NTU (not to approved
exceed at any method
336
time)
• Fecal coliform
- none
detectable in 4
of last 7 daily
samples
- 23/100 ml
(single sample
maximum)
Class B
reclaimed water:
• Secondary
treatment and
disinfection
• Fecal coliform
- 200/100 ml
(not to exceed
in 4 of the last
7 daily
Reclaimed Water
samples)
- 800/100 ml
(single sample
maximum)
Arkansas • Primary • As required by • Based on • Hydraulic - 0.5 • Required Spray irrigation: • Pertains to
treatment regulatory water balance to 4.0 in/wk • One well • 200 feet processed
agency using divisional • Nitrogen - upgradient • 1,320 feet to food crops only
average percolate • 1 well within populated area and evaluated
annual 90 nitrate-nitrogen site Non-spray on a case-by-
percentile not to exceed • One well system: case basis
rainfall 10 mg/l downgradient • 50 feet • Irrigation of
• More wells • 660 feet to raw food crops
may be populated area is not
required on a permitted
case-by-case
basis
California Disinfected Disinfected • Warning • No irrigation • Disinfected
tertiary recycled tertiary recycled alarms with tertiary
water: water: • Back-up power disinfected recycled water
• Oxidized, • Total coliform -
337
source tertiary can be used

coagulated sampled at • Multiple recycled water for irrigation of
(not required if least once treatment units within 50 feet food crops
membrane daily from the capable of of any where recycled
filtration is disinfected treating entire domestic water water comes
used and/or effluent flow with one supply well into contact
turbidity • Turbidity unit not in unless certain with edible
requirements - continuously operation or conditions are portion of crop
are met), sampled storage or met • Disinfected
filtered, following disposal • No secondary-2.2
disinfected filtration provisions impoundment recycled water
• Total coliform Disinfected • Emergency of disinfected can be used
- 2.2/100 ml secondary-2.2 storage or tertiary for irrigation of
(7-day median) recycled water: disposal: short- recycled water food crops
- 23/100 ml • Total coliform - term, 1 day; within 100 feet where edible
(not to exceed sampled at long-term, 20 of any portion is
in more than least once days domestic water produced
one sample in daily from the • Sufficient supply well above ground
any 30-day disinfected number of • No irrigation and not
Reclaimed Water
period) effluent qualified with, or contacted by
- 240/100 ml personnel impoundment the recycled
(maximum any of, disinfected water
one sample) secondary-2.2 • Undisinfected
• Turbidity recycled water secondary
requirements within 100 feet recycled water
for wastewater of any can be used
that has been domestic water for irrigation of
coagulated supply well orchards and
and passed • No irrigation vineyards
through natural with, or where recycled
undisturbed impoundment water does not
soils or a bed of, come into
of filter media undisinfected contact with
- maximum secondary edible portion
average of recycled water of crop and
2 NTU within a within 150 feet food crops that
24-hour period of any must undergo
- not to exceed domestic water commercial
338
5 NTU more supply well pathogen-

than 5 percent • No spray destroying
of the time irrigation of processing
within a any recycled before
24-hour period water, other consumption
- maximum of than
10 NTU at any disinfected
time tertiary
• Turbidity recycled water,
requirements within 100 feet
for wastewater of a residence
passed or a place
through where public
membrane exposure could
- not to exceed be similar to
0.2 NTU more that of a park,
than 5 percent playground, or
of the time schoolyard
within a
Reclaimed Water
24-hour period
- maximum of
0.5 NTU at any
time
Disinfected
secondary-2.2
recycled water:
• Oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
- 2.2/100 ml
(7-day median)
- 23/100 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
period)
Undisinfected
339
secondary
recycled water:
• Oxidized
wastewater
Colorado Consumed raw: • 500 feet to

[1] Surface domestic
irrigation supply well
• Oxidized and • 100 feet to any
disinfected irrigation well
• Total coliform • Setback from
- 2.2/100 ml property lines
(7-day median) based upon
• Not acceptable use of
for root crops adjoining
or crops where property
edible portions
contact ground
[2] Spray
Reclaimed Water
irrigation
• Oxidized,
coagulated,
clarified,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Total coliform
- 2.2/100 ml
(7-day median)
Processed food:
• Oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
- 23/100 ml
(7-day median)
Orchards &
Vineyards:
[1] Surface
irrigation
• Oxidized and
340
disinfected
• Total coliform
- 23/100 ml
(7-day median)
• Edible portion
of plant cannot
contact ground
[2] Spray
irrigation
• Oxidized,
coagulated,
clarified,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Total coliform
- 2.2/100 ml
(7-day median)
Florida • Secondary • Parameters to • Class I • At a minimum, • Site specific • Required • 75 feet to • Direct contact
Reclaimed Water
treatment with be monitored reliability - system storage • Design • One potable water irrigation of
filtration and and sampling requires capacity shall hydraulic upgradient well supply wells edible crops
high-level frequency to multiple or be the volume loading rate - located as • 75 feet from that will not be
disinfection be identified in back-up equal to three maximum close as reclaimed peeled,
• Chemical feed wastewater treatment units times the annual possible to the water skinned,
facilities to be facility permit and a portion of the average of site without transmission cooked, or
provided • Minimum secondary average daily 2 in/wk is being affected facility to public thermally
• 20 mg/l schedule for power source flow for which recommended by the site’s water supply processed
CBOD5 sampling and • Minimum no alternative • Based on discharge well before
(annual testing based reject storage reuse or nutrient and (background • Low trajectory consumption is
average) on system capacity equal disposal water balance well) nozzles not allowed
• 5 mg/l TSS capacity to 1-day flow at system is assessments • One well at the required within except for
(single sample) established for the average permitted edge of the 100 feet of tobacco and
• Total chlorine flow, pH, daily design • Water balance zone of outdoor public citrus
residual of at chlorine flow of the required with discharge eating, • Indirect
least 1 mg/l residual, treatment plant volume of downgradient drinking, and application
after a dissolved or the average storage based of the site bathing methods that
minimum oxygen, daily permitted on a 10-year (compliance facilities preclude direct
acceptable suspended flow of the recurrence well) • 200 feet from contact with
•
341
contact time of solids, CBOD5, reuse system, interval and a One well unlined the reclaimed
15 minutes at nutrients, and whichever is minimum of 20 downgradient storage ponds water can be
peak hourly fecal coliform less years of from the site to potable used for
flow • Continuous • Minimum climatic data and within the water supply irrigation of
• Fecal coliform on-line system size of • Not required if zone of wells any edible crop
- over 30-day monitoring of 0.1 mgd (not alternative discharge • Citrus irrigation
period, 75 turbidity prior required for system is (intermediate systems will
percent of to disinfection toilet flushing incorporated well) only require
samples below • Continuous and fire into the system • One well secondary
detection limits on-line protection design to located treatment and
- 25/100 ml monitoring of uses) ensure adjacent to basic
(single sample) total chlorine • Staffing - continuous unlined disinfection if
• pH 6 - 8.5 residual or 24 hrs/day, facility storage ponds public access
• Limitations to residual 7 days/wk or operation or lakes will be
be met after concentrations 6 hrs/day, • Existing or • Other wells restricted, the
disinfection of other 7 days/wk with proposed lakes may be reclaimed
disinfectants diversion of or ponds (such required water does not
• Monitoring for reclaimed as golf course depending on directly contact
Giardia and water to reuse ponds) are site-specific the fruit, and
Reclaimed Water
Cryptosporidium system only appropriate for criteria the fruit
based on during periods storage if it will • Quarterly produced is
treatment plant of operator not impair the monitoring processed
capacity presence ability of the required for before human
- > 1 mgd, lakes or ponds water level, consumption
each two-year management solids, arsenic,
- < 1 mgd , • Aquifer chloride,
each 5 year allowed as coliform, pH,
be taken may be
process
342
based on site-
be monitored
by facilities >
100,000 gpd
filtered, and • Continuous required with required determined by monitoring feet to drinking spray irrigation
disinfected turbidity sufficient unless it can water balance system may water supply of food crops
• Fecal coliform monitoring capacity to be consist of a well above ground
- 2.2/100 ml prior to and enable demonstrated number of • Outer edge of and not
(7-day median) after filtration effective that another lysimeters impoundment contacted by
- 23/100 ml process operation with time period is and/or at least 100 irrigation and
(not to exceed • Continuous any one unit adequate or monitoring feet from any orchards and
in more than measuring and out of service that no storage wells drinking water vineyards
one sample in recording of • Alarm devices is necessary depending on supply well bearing food
Reclaimed Water
any 30-day chlorine required for • Storage site size, site R-2 water: crops
period) residual loss of power, requirements characteristics, • For spray • R-2 water can
- 200/100 ml • Daily high water based on location, irrigation be used for
(maximum any monitoring of levels, failure water balance method of applications, spray irrigation
one sample) fecal coliform of pumps or using at least a discharge, and 500 feet to of food crops
• Inactivation • Weekly blowers, high 30-year record other residence undergoing
and/or removal monitoring of head loss on • Reject storage appropriate property or a commercial
of 99.999 BOD5 and filters, high required with a considerations place where pathogen
percent of the suspended effluent volume equal • One well public destroying
plaque-forming solids turbidity, loss to 1 day of flow upgradient and exposure could process before
units of F- of coagulant or at the average two wells be similar to consumption,
specific polymer feed, daily design downgradient that at a park, as well as
bacteriophage and loss of flow for project sites elementary orchards and
MS2, or polio chlorine • Emergency 500 acres or schoolyard or vineyards not
virus residual system storage more athletic field bearing food
• Detectable • Standby power not required • One well within • Minimum of crops during
turbidity not to source where an the wetted field 100 feet to any irrigation
exceed 5 NTU required for alternate area for each drinking water • R-2 water can
for more than treatment plant effluent project whose supply well be used for
• Outer edge of
343
15 minutes and distribution disposal surface area is subsurface

and never to pump stations system has greater than or impoundment irrigation of
exceed 10 been approved equal to 1,500 at least 300 food crops
NTU prior to acres feet from any above ground
filtration • One lysimeter drinking water and not
• Effluent per 200 acres supply well contacted by
turbidity not to • One lysimeter R-3 water: irrigation
exceed 2 NTU for project sites • Minimum of • R-3 water can
• Chemical that have 150 feet to be used for
pretreatment greater than 40 drinking water drip, surface,
facilities but less than supply well or subsurface
required in all 200 acres • Outer edge of irrigation of
cases where • Additional impoundment food crops
granular media lysimeters may at least 1000 undergoing
filtration is be necessary feet to any commercial
used; not to address drinking water pathogen
required for concerns of supply well process before
facilities using public health or consumption
membrane environmental (no later than
Reclaimed Water
filtration protection as 30 days before
• Theoretical related to before
chlorine variable harvest),
contact time of characteristics orchards and
120 minutes of the vineyards
and actual subsurface or bearing food
modal contact of the crops and
time of 90 operations of orchards and
minutes the project vineyards not
throughout bearing food
which the crops during
chlorine irrigation
residual is • R-2 water
5 mg/l used in spray
R-2 water: irrigation will
• Oxidized and be performed
disinfected when the area
• Fecal coliform is closed to the
- 23/100 ml public and the
344
(7-day median) public is

- 200/100 ml absent from
(not to exceed the area, and
in more than will end at
one sample in least 1 hour
any 30-day before the area
period) is open to the
• Theoretical public
chlorine • Subsurface
contact time of irrigation may
15 minutes be performed
and actual at any time
modal contact
time of 10
minutes
throughout
which the
chlorine
residual is
Reclaimed Water
0.5 mg/l
R-3 water:
• Oxidized
wastewater
Idaho Raw food crops
where reclaimed
water contacts
edible portion:
• Oxidized,
coagulated,
clarified,
filtered, and
disinfected
• Total coliform
- 2.2/100 ml
(7-day median)
Raw food crops
where reclaimed
water only
345
contacts unedible
portion:
• Oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
- 2.2/100 ml
(7-day median)
Processed foods
and orchards &
vineyards with no
direct contact of
reclaimed water:
[1] Unrestricted
public access
• Disinfected
primary
effluent
• Total coliform
- 230/100 ml
Reclaimed Water
(7-day median)
[2] Restricted
public access
• Primary
effluent
Indiana • Secondary • Daily • Alternate • Minimum of 90 • Maximum • 200 feet to • Food crops not
treatment and monitoring of power source days effective hydraulic potable water to be
disinfection TSS, coliform, required storage loading rate of supply wells or harvested for
• 10 mg/l BOD5 and chlorine capacity 2 in/week drinking water 14 months
• 5 mg/l TSS residual required springs after land
prior to • Weekly • 300 feet to any application of
disinfection (24 monitoring of waters of the wastewater if
hour average) BOD and pH state the harvested
• Fecal coliform • Monthly • 300 feet to any part touches
- no detectable monitoring of residence the ground and
fecal coliform total nitrogen, has no
(7-day median) ammonium harvested
- 14/100 ml nitrogen, parts below the
(single sample) nitrate soil surface
• pH 6 - 9 • Food crops not
346
nitrogen,
• Total chlorine phosphorus, to be
residual at and potassium harvested for
least 1 mg/l • Annual 38 months
after a monitoring of after land
minimum arsenic, application of
contact time of cadmium, wastewater if
30 minutes (if copper, lead, harvested
chlorination is mercury, parts are
used for nickel, below the soil
disinfection) selenium, and surface
zinc • Otherwise,
food crops not
to be
harvested for
30 days after
land
application of
wastewater
Reclaimed Water
Kansas • Secondary • Storage • Maximum daily • Site specific • 500 feet to • Irrigation of
treatment with provided to application rate residential unprocessed
periodic retain a of 3 in/ac/day areas food for direct
discharge to minimum of • Maximum • 200 feet to human
surface waters 900 days annual wells and consumption
• Primary average dry application rate water supplies prohibited
treatment with weather flow of 40 in/acre not on site
no discharge when no • Based on soil property
to surface discharge to and crop • 100 feet to
water surface water moisture adjacent
is available and/or nutrient properties
requirements • Groundwater
of selected table a depth
crop of at least 10
feet beneath
application
area
Michigan • pH 5.5 - 10 • Flow • Daily, monthly, • May be • 100 feet to • Irrigated crops
• 20 mg/l total measurement or annual required property lines for human
• Grab samples • Monitoring
347
inorganic design consumption

nitrogen collected and hydraulic requirements shall be limited
• 0.5 mg/l nitrite analyzed twice loading rate specific to to those
• 5 mg/l each month for shall not be each site requiring
phosphorus ammonia- more than 7 processing
• 1 mg/l nitrogen, percent of the prior to
phosphorus if nitrate- permeability of consumption
surface water nitrogen, the most • Allows
body is nitrite-nitrogen, restrictive soil irrigation of
downgradient sodium, layer within the vegetated
within chloride, solum as areas between
1,000 feet phosphorus, determined by May 1 and
• Aluminum, and pH the saturated October 15
150 ug/l hydraulic • Governed by
• Chloride, conductivity Michigan
250 mg/l method or 12 Department of
• Sodium, percent of the Environmental
150 mg/l permeability as Quality issued
• Sulfate, determined by groundwater
Reclaimed Water
250 mg/l the basin discharge
• Iron, 300 ug/l infiltration permits
• Manganese, method • Categorized as
50 ug/l • Annual slow rate land
• THM limits hydraulic treatment
• Treatment loading rate
technology shall not be
standards for more than 3
certain organic percent of the
substances permeability of
• Additional the solum
effluent criteria when
determined on determined by
a case-by-case either the
basis cylinder
infiltration
method or air
entry
permeameter
348
test method
Montana • Oxidized, • Effluent to be • Nitrogen and • Determined on • 100 feet to any • Reduction to
clarified, monitored on hydraulic a case-by-case water supply reclaimed
coagulated, a regular basis loadings basis well water quality
filtered, and to show the determined • Consideration • Distance to requirements
disinfected biochemical based on is given to surface water may be
• 10 mg/l or less and methods in groundwater determined on considered for
of BOD and bacteriological EPA Manual characteristics, a case-by-case food crops
TSS quality of the 625/1-81-013 past practices, basis based on which undergo
• Fecal coliform applied • Hydraulic depth to quality of extensive
- 23/100 ml wastewater loading must groundwater, effluent and commercial,
(single sample • Monitoring be based on cropping the level of physical, or
in any 30-day frequency to the wettest practices, etc. disinfection chemical
period) be determined year in ten processing
• Turbidity on a case-by- years sufficient to
- 2 NTU case basis destroy
(average) pathogenic
- 5 NTU (not to agents before
exceed more it is suitable for
Reclaimed Water
than 5 percent human
of the time consumption
during any 24-
hour period)
Nevada • At a minimum, • None required • Only surface
secondary irrigation of
treatment with fruit or nut
disinfection bearing trees
• 30 mg/l BOD5 permitted
• Fecal coliform
- 200/100 ml
(30-day
geometric
mean)
- 400/100 ml
(maximum
daily number)
New Jersey • Fecal coliform • Continuous • Not required • Hydraulic • 75 feet to • Irrigation of
- 2.2/100 ml on-line when another loading rate potable water edible crops
349
(7-day median) monitoring of permitted - maximum supply wells that will be

- 14/100 ml chlorine reuse system annual that are peeled,
(maximum any residual or effluent average of existing or skinned,
one sample) produced disposal 2 in/wk but have been cooked, or
• Minimum oxidant at the system is may be approved for thermally
chlorine compliance incorporated increased construction processed
residual monitoring into the system based on a • 75 feet before
- 1.0 mg/l after point design site-specific provided from consumption is
15-minute • For spray • If system evaluation a reclaimed allowed
contact at peak irrigation, storage ponds • The spray water • An indirect
hourly flow chlorination are used, they irrigation of transmission method that
• Alternative levels for do not have to reclaimed facility to all precludes
methods of disinfection be lined water shall not potable water direct contact
disinfection, should be • Reject storage produce supply wells with the
such as UV continually ponds shall be surface runoff • 100 feet from reclaimed
and ozone, evaluated to lined or sealed or ponding outdoor public water (such as
may be ensure to prevent eating, ridge and
approved chlorine measurable drinking, and furrow
• TSS not to residual levels seepage bathing irrigation) is
Reclaimed Water
exceed 5 mg/l do not • Existing or facilities permitted for
before adversely proposed • 100 feet edible crops
disinfection impact ponds (such as between that will not be
• Total nitrogen vegetation golf course indoor peeled,
- 10 mg/l but • Continuous ponds) are aesthetic skinned,
may be less monitoring for appropriate for features and cooked, or
stringent if turbidity before storage of adjacent thermally
higher limit is disinfection is reuse water if indoor public processed
still protective required the ability of eating and before
of environment • Operating the ponds to drinking consumption
• Secondary protocol function as facilities when • Secondary
• Filtration required stormwater in the same treatment for
• Chemical • User/Supplier management room or the purpose of
addition prior Agreement systems is not building the manual
to filtration may • Annual usage impaired refers to the
be necessary report existing
• A chlorine • Annual treatment
residual of inventory requirements
0.5 mg/l or submittal on in the NJPDES
350
greater is commercial permit, not

recommended operations including the
to reduce using additional
odors, slime, reclaimed reclaimed
and bacterial water to water for
re-growth irrigate edible beneficial
crop reuse
treatment
requirements
New Mexico • Adequately • Fecal coliform • Only surface
treated and sample taken irrigation on
disinfected at point of food crops with
• Fecal coliform diversion to no contact of
– 1,000/100 ml irrigation reclaimed
system water on edible
portion is
permitted
Oklahoma • Primary • Standby power • Required for • Based on the • 100 feet to • Use not
treatment required for periods when lower of the adjacent allowed on
Reclaimed Water
continuity of available two rates property food crops that
operation wastewater calculated for • Additional can be eaten
during power exceeds soil distance may raw
failures design permeability be required • May be used
hydraulic and nitrogen where for irrigation of
loading rate, requirements prevailing crops such as
and when the winds could corn, wheat,
ground is cause aerosols and oats,
saturated or to drift into provided a
frozen residential period of 30
• Based on areas days elapses
water balance • Buffer zone to between last
• Must provide be a part of the application and
at least 90 permitted site harvest
days of
storage above
that required
for primary
treatment
• Standby power • Surface
351
Oregon Unprocessed Unprocessed Unprocessed

food : food: with capacity food: irrigation
• Level IV - • Total coliform to fully operate • None required required for
biological sampling all essential Processed food orchards and
treatment, - once a day treatment and orchards and vineyards
clarification, • Turbidity processes vineyards: • No irrigation of
coagulation, - hourly • Redundant • 10 foot buffer processed
filtration, and Processed food treatment for surface food crops and
disinfection crops and facilities and irrigation orchards and
• Total coliform orchards and monitoring • 70 foot buffer vineyards 3
- 2.2/100 ml vineyards: equipment to for spray days prior to
(7-day median) • Total coliform meet required irrigation harvesting
- 23/100 ml sampling levels of
(maximum any - once a week treatment
sample) • Alarm devices
• Turbidity to provide
- 2 NTU warning of loss
(24-hour of power
mean) and/or failure
Reclaimed Water
- 5 NTU of process
(5 percent of equipment
time during 24-
hour period)
Processed food
crops and
orchards and
vineyards:
• Level II -
biological
treatment and
disinfection
• Total coliform
- 240/100 ml
(2 consecutive
samples)
- 23/100 ml
(7-day median)
Texas Direct contact Direct contact • Based on • Spray irrigation
352
with edible with edible water balance not permitted

portion of crop portion of crop on food crops
unless food crop unless food crop that may be
undergoes undergoes consumed raw
pasteurization pasteurization • Other types of
process process irrigation that
• Type I • Sampling and avoid contact
reclaimed analysis twice of reclaimed
water per week for water with
Reclaimed water BOD5 or edible portions
on a 30 day CBOD5, of food crops
average to have turbidity, and are acceptable
a quality of: fecal coliform • Food crops
• 5 mg/l BOD5 or Direct contact that will be
CBOD5 with edible substantially
• 10 mg/l for portion of crop processed
landscape not likely or prior to human
impoundment where food crop consumption
• Turbidity undergoes may be spray
Reclaimed Water
- 3 NTU pasteurization irrigated
• Fecal coliform • Sampling and
- 20/100 ml analysis once
(geometric per week for
mean) BOD5 or
- 75/100 ml CBOD5 and
(not to exceed fecal coliform
in any sample)
Direct contact
with edible
portion of crop
not likely or
where food crop
undergoes
pasteurization
• Type II
reclaimed
water
Reclaimed water
353
on a 30-day
average to have
a quality of:
• 30 mg/l BOD5
with treatment
using pond
system
• 20 mg/l BOD5
or 15 mg/l
CBOD5 with
treatment other
than pond
system
• Fecal coliform
- 200/100 ml
(geometric
mean)
- 800/100 ml
(not to exceed
Reclaimed Water
in any sample)
Utah Spray irrigation Spray irrigation • Alternative Spray irrigation • Type I treated
of food crops: of food crops: disposal option of food crops: wastewater
• Type I treated • Daily or diversion to • 50 feet to any required for
wastewater composite storage potable water spray irrigation
- secondary sampling required in well of food crops
treatment with required for case quality • Impoundments where the
filtration and BOD requirements at least 500 applied
disinfection • Continuous not met feet from any reclaimed
• 10 mg/l BOD turbidity potable water water is likely
(monthly monitoring well to have direct
average) prior to Surface irrigation contact with
• Turbidity prior disinfection of food crops: the edible part
to disinfection • Daily • 300 feet to any • Type II treated
- not to exceed monitoring of potable water wastewater
2 NTU fecal coliform well required for
(daily average) • Continuous • Impoundments irrigation of
- not to exceed total residual at least 500 food crops
5 NTU at any chlorine feet from any where the
354
time monitoring potable water applied

• Fecal coliform • pH monitored well reclaimed
- none continuously or • Public access water is not
detected by daily grab to effluent likely to have
(weekly samples storage and direct contact
median as Surface irrigation irrigation or with the edible
determined of food crops: disposal sites part, whether
from daily grab • Weekly to be restricted the food will be
samples) composite by a stocktight processed or
- 14/100 ml sampling fence or other not (spray
(not to exceed required for comparable irrigation not
in any sample) BOD means allowed)
• 1.0 mg/l total • Daily
residual composite
chlorine after sampling
30 minutes required for
contact time at TSS
peak flow • Daily
• pH 6 - 9 monitoring of
Reclaimed Water
Surface irrigation fecal coliform
of food crops: • pH monitored
• Type II treated continuously or
wastewater - by daily grab
secondary samples
treatment with
disinfection
• 25 mg/l BOD
(monthly
average)
• TSS
- 25 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 35 mg/l
(weekly mean)
• Fecal coliform
- 200/100 ml
(weekly
355
median)
– 800/100 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• pH 6 - 9
Washington Spray irrigation of • BOD – 24-hour • Warning • Storage • Hydraulic • May be Spray irrigation of • No orchard or
food crops or composite alarms required when loading rate to required food crops or vineyard fruit
surface irrigation samples independent of no approved be determined • Monitoring surface irrigation may be
of root crops: collected at normal power alternative based on a program will be of root crops: harvested that
• Class A - least weekly supply disposal detailed water based on • 50 feet to any has come in
oxidized, • TSS – 24-hour • Back-up power system exists balance reclaimed potable water contact with
coagulated, composite source • Storage analysis water quality supply well the irrigating
filtered, and samples • Emergency volume and quantity, Surface irrigation water or the
disinfected collected at storage: established by site specific of food crops: ground
• Total coliform least daily short-term, determining soil and • 50 feet to • Effluent quality
- 2.2/100 ml • Total coliform 1 day; storage period hydrogeologic areas requirements
(7-day mean) and dissolved long-term, required for characteristics, accessible to for processed
- 23/100 ml oxygen 20 days duration of a and other the public and food
(single sample) - grab samples • Multiple 10-year storm, considerations the use area determined on
Reclaimed Water
Surface irrigation collected at treatment units using a property line a case-by-case
of food crops: least daily or storage or minimum of 20 • 100 feet to any basis
• Class B - • Continuous disposal years of potable water
oxidized and on-line options climatic data supply
disinfected monitoring of • Qualified • At a minimum, Irrigation of food
• Total coliform turbidity personnel system storage crops that
- 2.2/100 ml available or on capacity undergo
(7-day mean) call at all times should be the processing or
- 23/100 ml the irrigation volume equal surface irrigation
(single sample) system is to 3 times that of orchards and
Irrigation of foods operating portion of the vineyards:
crops that average daily • 100 feet to
undergo flow for which areas
processing or no alternative accessible to
surface irrigation reuse or the public and
of orchards and disposal the use area
vineyards: system is property line
• Class D - permitted • 300 feet to any
oxidized and potable water
356
disinfected supply
• Total coliform
- 240/100 ml
(7-day mean)
General
compliance
requirements:
• 30 mg/l BOD
and TSS
(monthly
mean)
• Turbidity
- 2 NTU
(monthly)
- 5 NTU
(not to exceed
at any time)
• Minimum
chlorine
Reclaimed Water
residual of
1 mg/l after a
contact time of
30 minutes
West Virginia • Secondary • Frequency of • Minimum of 90 • Hydraulic - • Minimum of • Fence to be • Analysis of
treatment and reporting days storage maximum one well placed at least crop required if
disinfection determined on to be provided application between 50 feet beyond used for
• 30 mg/l BOD a case-by-case rates of project site and spray area human
• 30 mg/l TSS basis 0.25 in/hr public well(s) • 350 feet from consumption
0.50 in/day or high fence to
2.0 in/wk capacity adjacent
private wells property lines
• Minimum of or highways
one well in unless low
each direction trajectory
of groundwater spray and/or
movement physical
buffers are
provided
• Minimum of • Treated • Multiple units • Emergency • Will be applied • 30 feet to • Food crops not
357
Wyoming
Class B wastewater to and equipment storage for the purpose adjacent to be
wastewater - be analyzed • Alternative of beneficial property lines harvested for
secondary for fecal power sources reuse and will • 30 feet to all 30 days after
treatment and coliform, • Alarm systems not exceed the surface waters application of
disinfection nitrate as N, and irrigation • 100 feet to all treated
• Fecal coliform ammonia as N, instrumenta- demand of the potable water wastewater
- greater than and pH at a tion vegetation at supply wells
2.2/100 ml but minimum • Operator the site
less than • Monitoring certification • Not to be
200/100 ml frequency and standby applied at a
- once per capability rate greater
systems in a manner
Reclaimed Water
of a
groundwater
aquifer
358
Table A-4. Agricultural Reuse – Non-Food Crops
Reclaimed Water
(1)
Alabama • Minimum EPA • Controls • Based on • Based on soil • At least three • 100 feet to • Categorized as
secondary, or required to water balance permeability downgradient property lines a form of land
equivalent to indicate any performed on a and nitrogen monitoring • 300 feet to treatment
secondary, system monthly basis limits (10 mg/l wells existing defined as use
limits and malfunction or with a nitrate) • At least one habitable of a
appropriate permit varied precipitation • Excessive upgradient residences vegetation-soil
disinfection field operations input using a rainwater run- monitoring well • Spray irrigation system to both
• If wastewater 5-year, 24- off should be • Contaminants not allowed renovate and
stabilization hour rainfall diverted in groundwater within 100 feet serve as the
pond is used, event, 30-year • Excessive not to exceed of any ultimate
pond must minimum base ponding should primary and perennial lake receiver of
meet ADEM period be avoided secondary or stream treated
requirements • In addition to maximum • If irrigation wastewater
with second storage contaminant causes an
cell being used dictated by levels intermittent
as a holding water balance, • Minimum stream to
pond a minimum of depth to become
• Mechanical 15 days groundwater, perennial, the
systems, if storage should without use of irrigation must
used, should be provided for an underdrain cease within
359
allow as little contingencies collection 100 feet of the

nitrification as system, shall stream
possible be 4 feet • Spray irrigation
not allowed in
wellhead
protection area
(WHPA 1) - if
no wellhead
delineation
exists,
minimum
distance for
application
shall be 1,000
feet or as
required
• No sites within
100 year
floodplain
Alaska • Secondary • Categorized as
Reclaimed Water
(1)
treatment, and land surface
if discharge is disposal
potential health defined as
hazard, disposal of
disinfection treated
• BOD5 and TSS wastewater
from source onto the
other than surface of the
stabilization land in area
pond suitable for
- 30 mg/l that purpose
(30-day
average)
- 45 mg/l
(7-day
average)
- 60 mg/l
(24-hour
average)
• BOD5 from
360
stabilization
pond
- 45 mg/l
(30-day
average)
and a percent
removal that is
not less than
65 percent by
weight
- 65 mg/l
(7-day
average)
• Suspended
solids from
stabilization
pond
- 70 mg/l
(30-day
average)
• pH 6 - 9
Reclaimed Water
(1)
Arizona Class B • Case-by-case • Application • Class B
• Secondary either the water may be
treatment and water allotment used for
disinfection assigned by irrigation of
• Fecal coliform the Arizona pasture for
- 200/100 ml Department of milking
(not to exceed Water animals and
in 4 of the last Resources (a livestock
7 daily water balance watering (dairy
samples) that considers animals)
- 800/100 ml consumptive • Class C
(single sample use of water by reclaimed
maximum) the crop, turf, water can be
Class C or landscape used for
reclaimed water: vegetation) or irrigation of
• Secondary an alternative pasture for
treatment in a approved non-dairy
series of method animals;
wastewater livestock
361
stabilization watering (non-

ponds, dairy animals);
including irrigation of
aeration, with sod farms,
or without fiber, seed,
disinfection forage, and
• Minimum total similar crops;
retention time and silviculture
of 20 days
• Fecal coliform
- 1,000/100 ml
(not to exceed
in 4 of the last
7 daily
samples)
- 4,000/100 ml
(single sample
maximum)
Arkansas • Primary • Based on • Hydraulic - 0.5 • Required Spray irrigation:
treatment water balance to 4.0 in/wk • One well • 200 feet
• Disinfection using divisional • Nitrogen - upgradient • 1,320 feet to
Reclaimed Water
(1)
also required average percolate • 1 well within populated area
when irrigating annual 90 nitrate-nitrogen site Non-spray
dairy cattle percentile not to exceed • One well system:
pasture land rainfall 10 mg/l downgradient • 50 feet
• More wells • 660 feet to
may be populated area
required on a
case-by-case
basis
California Ornamental Disinfected • Warning • No irrigation • Irrigation of
nursery stock and secondary-23 alarms with, or ornamental
sod farms where recycled water • Back-up power impoundment nursery stock
access by • Total coliform source of, disinfected and sod farms
general public is – sampled at • Multiple secondary-23 will be allowed
not restricted, least once treatment units recycled water provided no
pasture for daily from the capable of within 100 feet irrigation with
milking animals, disinfected treating entire of any recycled water
and any effluent flow with one domestic water occurs for a
nonedible unit not in supply well period of 14
vegetation where operation or • No irrigation days prior to
362
access is storage or with, or harvesting,

controlled so that disposal impoundment retail sale, or
the irrigated area provisions of, access by the
cannot be used • Emergency undisinfected general public
as if it were part storage or secondary
of a park, disposal: recycled water
playground, or short-term, within 150 feet
schoolyard 1 day; of any
• Disinfected long-term, domestic water
secondary-23 20 days supply well
recycled water- • Sufficient • No spray
oxidized and number of irrigation within
disinfected qualified 100 feet of a
• Total coliform personnel residence or a
- 23/100 ml place where
(7-day median) public
- 240/100 ml exposure could
(not to exceed be similar to
in more than that of a park,
one sample in playground, or
any 30-day schoolyard
Reclaimed Water
(1)
period)
Non food-bearing
trees, ornamental
nursery stock and
sod farms, fodder
and fiber crops,
pasture for
animals not
producing milk for
human
consumption, and
seed crops not
eaten by humans:
• Undisinfected
secondary
recycled water-
oxidized
wastewater
Colorado • Oxidized and • 500 feet to • Includes

363
disinfected domestic irrigation of

• Total coliform supply well pastures for
- 23/100 ml • 100 feet to any milking
(7-day median) irrigation well animals
• Setback from
property lines
based upon
use of
adjoining
property
Delaware • Biological • Parameters • Storage • Maximum • Required • 150 feet to all • Regulations
treatment and which may provisions design • One well property pertain to sites
disinfection require required either wastewater upgradient of boundaries closed to
• BOD5 monitoring as a separate loadings site or and the public access
- 50 mg/l at include volume facility or limited to otherwise shoulder of
average of water incorporated 2.5 in/week outside the internal and
design flow applied to into the • Maximum influence of the external public
- 75 mg/l at spray fields, pretreatment instantaneous site for roads
peak flow BOD, system wastewater background • 100 feet to
• TSS suspended • Minimum 15 application monitoring perennial lake
Reclaimed Water
(1)
- 50 mg/l for solids, fecal days storage rates limited to • One well within or stream
mechanical coliform required 0.25 in/hour wetted field • 50 feet to edge
systems bacteria, pH, unless other • Design area of each of channelized,
- 90 mg/l for COD, TOC, measures for wastewater drainage basin intermittent
ponds ammonia controlling flow loading must intersected by watercourse
• Fecal coliform nitrogen, are be determined site • If irrigation
- not to exceed nitrate demonstrated as a function of • Two wells causes
200/100 ml at nitrogen, total • Must determine precipitation, downgradient intermittent
all times Kjeldahl operational, evapotrans- in each watercourse to
nitrogen, total wet weather, piration, design drainage basin become
phosphorus, and water percolation intersected by perennial, 100-
chloride, Na, balance rate, nitrogen site foot buffer
K, Ca, Mg, storage loading and • One well requirement
metals, and requirements other upgradient and will apply
priority constituent 1 well • Wetland
pollutants loading downgradient buffers
• Parameters limitations, of the pond determined on
and sampling groundwater treatment and a case-by-case
frequency and drainage storage basis
determined on conditions, and facilities in
364
a case-by-case average and each drainage

basis peak design basin
wastewater intersected by
flows and site
seasonal • May require
fluctuations measurement
of depth to
groundwater,
pH, COD,
TOC, nitrate
nitrogen, total
phosphorus,
electrical
conductivity,
chloride, fecal
coliform
bacteria,
metals, and
priority
pollutants
• Parameters
Reclaimed Water
(1)
and sampling
frequency
determined on
a case-by-case
basis
Florida • Secondary • Parameters to • At a minimum, • Site specific • Required • 100 feet to • Public access
treatment and be monitored system storage • Design • One buildings not will be
basic and sampling capacity shall hydraulic upgradient well part of the restricted
disinfection frequency to be the volume loading rate - located as treatment unless a
• 20 mg/l be identified in equal to 3 maximum close as facility, utility subsurface
CBOD5 and wastewater times the annual possible to the system, or application
TSS (annual facility permit portion of the average of site without municipal system is used
average) • Minimum average daily 2 in/wk is being affected operation • Reclaimed
• 30 mg/l schedule for flow for which recommended by the site’s • 100 feet to site water may be
CBOD5 and sampling and no alternative • Based on discharge property lines applied to
TSS (monthly testing based reuse or nutrient and (background • 500 feet to pastures,
average) on system disposal water balance well) potable water wholesale
• 45 mg/l capacity system is assessments • One well at the supply wells nurseries, sod
CBOD5 and established for permitted edge of the and Class I farms, forests,
TSS (weekly flow, pH, • Water balance zone of and Class II and areas
365
average) chlorine required with discharge surface waters used to grow

• 60 mg/l residual, volume of downgradient • 100 feet from feed, fodder,
CBOD5 and dissolved storage based of the site reclaimed fiber, or seed
TSS (single oxygen, on a 10-year (compliance water crops
sample) suspended recurrence well) transmission • Milking cows
• 10 mg/l TSS solids, CBOD5, interval and a • One well facility to public are not
for subsurface nutrients, and minimum of 20 downgradient water supply permitted to
application fecal coliform years of from the site wells graze on land
systems • Primary and climatic data and within the • 100 feet to for a period of
(single sample) secondary • Not required if zone of outdoor public 15 days after
• Chlorine drinking water alternative discharge eating, last application
residual of standards to system is (intermediate drinking, and of reclaimed
0.5 mg/l be monitored incorporated well) bathing water
maintained by facilities > into the system • Other wells facilities
after at least 100,000 gpd design to may be • 500 feet from
15 minutes ensure required new unlined
contact time at continuous depending on storage ponds
peak flow facility site-specific to potable
• Fecal coliform operation criteria water supply
- 200/100 ml • Quarterly wells
(annual monitoring • Some setback
Reclaimed Water
(1)
average) required for distances can
- 200/100 ml water level, be reduced if
(monthly nitrate, total additional
geometric dissolved disinfection
mean) solids, arsenic, and reliability
- 400/100 ml cadmium, are provided or
(not to exceed chloride, if alternative
in more than chromium, application
10 percent of lead, fecal techniques are
samples in a coliform, pH, used
30-day period) and sulfate
- 800/100 ml • Monitoring
(single sample) may be
• pH 6 - 8.5 required for
• Limitations to additional
be met after parameters
disinfection based on site-
specific
conditions and
groundwater
366
quality
• Turbidity not to residual supply or at the
Reclaimed Water
(1)
turbidity irrigated
3 NTU causing harm
to the cover
crop
- An NPDES
permit for all or
part of the flow
filtered, and • Continuous required with required determined by monitoring feet to drinking spray irrigation
disinfected turbidity sufficient unless it can water balance system may water supply of pastures for
• Fecal coliform monitoring capacity to be consist of a well milking and
- 2.2/100 ml prior to and enable demonstrated number of • Outer edge of other animals
• R-2 water can
367
(7-day median) after filtration effective that another lysimeters impoundment

- 23/100 ml process operation with time period is and/or at least 100 be used with
(not to exceed • Continuous any one unit adequate or monitoring feet from any buffer for spray
in more than measuring and out of service that no storage wells drinking water irrigation of
one sample in recording of • Alarm devices is necessary depending on supply well sod farms,
any 30-day chlorine required for • Storage site size, site R-2 water: feed, fodder,
period) residual loss of power, requirements characteristics, • For spray fiber, and seed
- 200/100 ml • Daily high water based on location, irrigation crops not
(maximum any monitoring of levels, failure water balance method of applications, eaten by
one sample) fecal coliform of pumps or using at least a discharge, and 500 feet to humans, and
• Inactivation • Weekly blowers, high 30-year record other residence timber and
and/or removal monitoring of head loss on • Reject storage appropriate property or a trees not
of 99.999 BOD5 and filters, high required with a considerations place where bearing food
percent of the suspended effluent volume equal • One well public crops
plaque-forming solids turbidity, loss to 1 day of flow upgradient and exposure could • R-2 water can
units of F- of coagulant or at the average two wells be similar to be used for
specific polymer feed, daily design downgradient that at a park, subsurface
bacteriophage and loss of flow for project sites elementary irrigation of
MS2, or polio chlorine • Emergency 500 acres or school yard or pastures for
virus residual system storage more athletic field milking and
• Detectable • Standby power not required • One well within • Minimum of other animals
Reclaimed Water
(1)
turbidity not to source where an the wetted field 100 feet to any • R-2 water can
exceed 5 NTU required for alternate area for each drinking water be used for
for more than treatment plant effluent project whose supply well surface, drip,
15 minutes and distribution disposal surface area is • Outer edge of or subsurface
and never to pump stations system has greater than or impoundment irrigation of
exceed 10 been approved equal to 1,500 at least 300 ornamental
NTU prior to acres feet from any plants for
filtration • One lysimeter drinking water commercial
• Effluent per 200 acres supply well use only if
turbidity not to • One lysimeter R-3 water: plants are
exceed 2 NTU for project sites • Minimum of harvested
• Chemical that have 150 feet to above any
pretreatment greater than 40 drinking water portion
facilities but less than supply well contacted by
required in all 200 acres • Outer edge of reclaimed
cases where • Additional impoundment water
granular media lysimeters may at least 1000 • R-3 water can
filtration is be necessary feet to any be used for
used; not to address drinking water drip, surface,
required for public health supply well or subsurface
368
facilities using concerns or irrigation of

membrane environmental feed, fodder,
filtration protection as and fiber crops
• Theoretical related to not eaten by
chlorine variable humans and
contact time of characteristics timber and
120 minutes of the trees not
and actual subsurface or bearing food
modal contact of the crops
time of 90 operations of (irrigation must
minutes the project cease at least
throughout 24 days before
which the harvest)
chlorine • R-3 water can
residual is be used for
5 mg/l drip or surface
R-2 water: irrigation of
• Oxidized and seed crops not
disinfected eaten by
• Fecal coliform humans
- 23/100 ml • R-2 water
Reclaimed Water
(1)
(7-day median) used in spray
- 200/100 ml irrigation will
(not to exceed be performed
in more than when the area
one sample in is closed to the
any 30-day public and the
period) public is
• Theoretical absent from
chlorine the area, and
contact time of will end at
15 minutes least 1 hour
and actual before the area
modal contact is open to the
time of 10 public
minutes • Subsurface
throughout irrigation may
which the be performed
chlorine at any time
residual is
0.5 mg/l
369
R-3 water:
• Oxidized
wastewater
Idaho Unrestricted • Animals not to
public access: be grazed on
• Disinfected land where
primary effluent is
effluent applied
• Total coliform • Animals not to
- 230/100 ml be fed
(7-day median) vegetation
Restricted public irrigated with
access: effluent until at
• Primary least two
effluent weeks after
application
Illinois • Two-cell • Minimum • Based on the • Required • 200 feet to
lagoon or storage limiting • One well residential lot
mechanical capacity equal characteristic upgradient for lines
secondary to at least 150 of the treated determining • 25 feet to any
Reclaimed Water
(1)
treatment days of wastewater background residential lot
wastewater at and the site concentrations line if
design • Balances must • Two wells surrounded by
average flow be calculated downgradient a fence with a
except in and submitted in the minimum
southern for water, dominant height of 40
Illinois areas nitrogen, direction of inches
where a phosphorus, groundwater • No buffer
minimum 120 and BOD movement required if the
days of • Wells between application and
storage each potable its associated
capacity to be water well and drying time
provided the application occur during a
• Storage can area if within period when
be determined 1,000 feet the area is
based on a • Monitoring of closed to the
rational design nitrates, public
that must ammonia
include nitrogen,
capacity for the chlorides,
370
wettest year sulfates, pH,

with a 20-year total dissolved
return solids,
and coliform
bacteria
Indiana • Secondary • Daily • Alternate • Minimum of 90 • Maximum • 200 feet to • No restrictions
treatment and monitoring of power source days effective hydraulic potable water are placed on
disinfection TSS, coliform required storage loading rate of supply wells or fecal coliform
• 30 mg/l BOD5 and chlorine capacity 2 in/week drinking water organisms
• 30 mg/l TSS residual required springs where public
• Fecal coliform • Weekly • 300 feet to any access is
- 200/100 ml monitoring of waters of the strictly
(7-day median) BOD and pH state restricted
- 800/100 ml • Monthly • 300 feet to any • Feed and fiber
(single sample) monitoring of residence crops not to be
• pH 6 - 9 total nitrogen, harvested for
• Total chlorine ammonium 30 days after
residual at nitrogen, land
least 1 mg/l nitrate application of
after a nitrogen, wastewater
Reclaimed Water
(1)
minimum phosphorus, • Turfgrass not
contact time of and potassium to be
30 minutes (if • Annual harvested for 1
chlorination is monitoring of year after
used for arsenic, application of
disinfection) cadmium, wastewater
copper, lead, • Grazing of
mercury, animals
nickel, prohibited for
selenium, and 30 days after
zinc land
application of
wastewater
Iowa • At a minimum, • Monitoring of • Minimum of • Minimum days • Determined by • Monitoring • 300 feet to • Categorized as
treatment the following two storage of storage using a water required existing land
equivalent to parameters cells required based on balance per adjacent to the dwellings or application
that obtained required capable of climatic month of site both up public use using slow rate
from a primary unless it has series and restraints operation and areas (not (irrigation) and
lagoon cell been parallel • When flows • For overland downstream of including roads overland flow
• Disinfection demonstrated operation are generated flow systems, the site in and highways)
• 400 feet to any
371
- required for that they are only during the maximum reference to
all land present in application hydraulic the general existing
application insignificant period, a application rate groundwater potable water
systems with amounts in the storage of flow direction supply well not
spray irrigation influent capacity of 45 3 in/week located on
application wastewater: days or the property
technique total organic flow generated • 300 feet to any
- must precede carbon, total during the structure,
actual spraying dissolved period of continuous
of the solids, sodium operation flowing stream
wastewater on absorption (whichever is or other
to a field area ratio, electrical less) must be physiographic
and must not conductivity, provided feature that
precede total nitrogen, • When may provide
storage ammonia discharging to direct
- minimum nitrogen, a receiving connection
contact time of organic waterway on a between the
15 minutes nitrogen, periodic basis, groundwater
with equipment nitrate storage for 180 table and the
necessary to nitrogen, total days of surface
maintain a phosphorus, average wet • Wetted
Reclaimed Water
(1)
residual chloride, pH, weather flow is disposal area
chlorine level alkalinity, required to be at least
of 0.5 mg/l hardness, 50 feet inside
trace the property
elements, and line of the land
coliform application site
bacteria Additional
• Location of requirements for
monitoring in Slow Rate
effluent prior to System:
site application • 1,000 feet to
• Reporting any shallow
frequency public water
depends on supply well
size of system • 500 feet to any
public lake or
impoundment
• _ mile to any
public lake or
impoundment
372
used as a
source of raw
water by a
potable water
supply
Kansas • Secondary • Storage • Maximum daily • Site specific • 500 feet to
treatment with provided to application rate residential
periodic retain a of 3 in/ac/day areas
discharge to minimum of • Maximum • 200 feet to
surface waters 90-days annual wells and
• Primary average dry application rate water supplies
treatment with weather flow of 40 in/acre off of site
no discharge when no • Based on soil property
to surface discharge to and crop • 100 feet to
water surface water moisture adjacent
is available and/or nutrient properties
requirements • Groundwater
of selected table a depth
crop of at least 10
feet beneath
application
Reclaimed Water
(1)
area
Maryland • 70 mg/l BOD • Minimum of • Maximum • May be • 200 feet to • Categorized as
• 90 mg/l TSS 60-days application rate required property lines, land treatment
• pH 6.5 - 8.5 storage to be of 2 in/wk on • One well waterways,
• Fecal coliform provided for all annual upgradient of and roads for
- 200/100 ml systems average basis site spray irrigation
receiving • Water balance • Two wells • 500 feet to
wastewater required based adjacent to the housing
flows on wettest year property line developments
throughout the in the last 10 and and parks for
year years of record downgradient spray irrigation
• Actual of site • Reduction of
application rate • Monitoring the buffer zone
accepted must frequency up to 50
consider determined on percent will be
permeability of a case-by-case considered
the soils, depth basis with adequate
to windbreak
groundwater, • Minimum
and the buffer zone of
373
nutrient 50 feet for all

balance of the other types of
site slow rate
systems
Massachusetts • Secondary • pH - daily • EPA Class I • Immediate, • Required • 100 feet to • Includes use of
treatment with • BOD - weekly Reliability permitted • Monitoring buildings, reclaimed
filtration and • Turbidity - standards may discharge wells to be residential water for
disinfection continuous be required alternatives located and property, landscaping at
• pH 6 - 9 monitoring • Two are required constructed to private wells, nurseries
• 10 mg/l BOD5 prior to independent for emergency strategically Class A • Spray irrigation
• Turbidity disinfection and separate situations and sample the surface water must take
- 2 NTU • Fecal coliform sources of for non- geologic units bodies, and place during
(average over - daily power growing of interest surface water non-use hours
24-our period) • Disinfection • Unit season between the intakes and cannot
- 5 NTU UV intensity - redundancy disposal discharges and • Other than for result in any
(not to exceed daily or • Additional sensitive private wells, ponding
at any time) chlorine storage receptors and using a green
• Fecal coliform residual - daily withdrawal barrier in the
- no detectable • TSS - twice points form of hedges
colonies per week • Sensitive or trees placed
Reclaimed Water
(1)
(7-day median) • Nitrogen - receptors at the dwelling
- 14/100 ml twice per include, but side of the
(single sample) month are not limited buffer may
• 5 mg/l TSS • Phosphorus - to public and reduce the
• 10 mg/l total twice per private wells, setback
nitrogen month surface waters, distance to 50
• Class I • Heterotrophic embayments, feet
groundwater plate count - and ACECs • No spray
permit quarterly • Monitoring and irrigation
standards • MS-2 phage - testing directed into
(SDWA quarterly frequency and Zone I of
Drinking Water Permit standards parameters public water
Standards) -variable testing determined supply wells
requirements based on land
use, effluent
quality and
quantity, and
the sensitivity
of receptors
Michigan • pH 5.5 - 10 • Flow • Daily, monthly, • May be • 100 feet to • Dairy animals
• 20 mg/l total
374
measurement or annual required property lines shall not be

inorganic • Grab samples design • Monitoring allowed to
nitrogen collected and hydraulic requirements graze on fields
• 0.5 mg/l nitrite analyzed twice loading rate specific to until 30 days
• 5 mg/l each month for shall not be each site after the
phosphorus ammonia- more than 7 application
• 1 mg/l nitrogen, percent of the • Allows
phosphorus if nitrate- permeability of irrigation of
surface water nitrogen, the most vegetated
body is nitrite-nitrogen, restrictive soil areas between
downgradient sodium, layer within the May 1 and
within chloride, solum as October 15
1,000 feet phosphorus, determined by • Governed by
• Aluminum, 150 and pH the saturated Michigan
ug/l hydraulic Department of
• Chloride, 250 conductivity Environmental
mg/l method or 12 Quality issued
• Sodium, 150 percent of the groundwater
mg/l permeability as discharge
• Sulfate, 250 determined by permits
mg/l the basin • Categorized as
Reclaimed Water
(1)
• Iron, 300 ug/l infiltration slow rate land
• Manganese, method treatment
50 ug/l • Annual
• THM limits hydraulic
• Treatment loading rate
technology shall not be
standards for more than 3
certain organic percent of the
substances permeability of
• Additional the solum
effluent criteria when
determined on determined by
a case-by-case either the
basis cylinder
infiltration
method or air
entry
permeameter
test method
Missouri • Treatment • Minimum of 45 • Application • Minimum of • 150 feet to • From May 1 to
375
equivalent to days in south rates shall in one well existing October 30,
that obtained with no no case between site dwellings or grazing of
from primary discharge exceed and public public use animals or
wastewater • Minimum of 90 - 0.5 in/hour supply well areas, harvesting of
pond cell days in north - 1.0 in/day excluding forage shall be
with no - 3.0 in/week roads or deferred for 14
discharge • Maximum highways days after
• Based on the annual • 50 feet to irrigation
design application rate property lines • From
wastewater not to exceed • 300 feet to November 1 to
flows and net a range from 4 potable water April 30,
rainfall minus to10 percent of supply wells grazing of
evaporation the design not on animals or
expected for a sustained property, harvesting of
one in 1--year permeability sinkholes, and forage shall be
return rate for the losing streams deferred for 30
frequency for number of or other days after
the storage days per year structure or irrigation
period selected when soils are physiographic • Grazing of
not frozen feature that dairy animals
• Nitrogen may provide generally not
Reclaimed Water
(1)
loading not to direct recommended
exceed the connection unless there
amount of between the has been a
nitrogen that groundwater much longer
can be used by table and the deferment
the vegetation surface period
to be grown
Montana Fodder, fiber, and • Effluent to be • Nitrogen and • Determined on • 100 feet to any
seed crops: monitored on hydraulic a case-by-case water supply
• Oxidized a regular basis loadings basis well
wastewater to show the determined • Consideration • Distance to
• Disinfection biochemical based on is given to surface water
generally not and methods in groundwater determined on
required bacteriological EPA Manual characteristics, a case-by-case
Pasture for quality of the 625/1-81-013 past practices, basis based on
milking animals: applied • Hydraulic depth to quality of
• Oxidized and wastewater loading must groundwater, effluent and
disinfected • Monitoring be based on cropping the level of
• Fecal coliform frequency to the wettest practices, etc. disinfection
- 23/100 ml be determined year in ten Additional
376
(7-day median) on a case-by- years requirements for

case basis fodder, fiber, and
seed crops:
• Fencing must
be provided
• 200 feet
between
fencing and
irrigated area
• 200 feet to any
dwelling,
including
residential
property
Nebraska • Biological • Site specific • Hydraulic • Site specific
treatment loading rate
should not
exceed 4 in/wk
• Nitrogen
loading not to
Reclaimed Water
(1)
exceed crop
uptake
Nevada • Secondary Spray irrigation: • Includes
treatment with • 400 foot or 800 irrigation of
disinfection foot minimum land used for
• 30 mg/l BOD5 buffer required pasture or
• Disinfection depending on other
Spray irrigation: disinfection agricultural
Minimum buffer level purposes
zone of 400 feet Surface irrigation: except growing
• Fecal coliform • None required crops for
- 200/100 ml human
(30-day consumption
geometric • Public access
mean) to site is
- 400/100 ml prohibited
(maximum
daily number)
Minimum buffer
zone of 800 feet
377
• Fecal coliform
- no limit
Surface irrigation:
• Fecal coliform
- 200/100 ml
(30-day
geometric
mean)
- 400/100 ml
(maximum
daily number)
New Jersey • Fecal coliform • Submission of • Not required • Hydraulic • 500 feet to • Secondary
- 200/100 ml Standard when another loading rate potable water treatment, for
(monthly Operations permitted - maximum supply wells the purpose of
average, Procedure that reuse system annual that are the manual,
geometric ensures proper or effluent average of existing or refers to the
mean) disinfection to disposal 2 in/wk but have been existing
- 400/100 ml the required system is may be approved for treatment
(maximum any level of incorporated increased construction requirements
one sample) 1.0 mg/l into the system based on a • 100 feet in the NJPDES
Reclaimed Water
(1)
• Minimum • Chlorination design site-specific provided from permit, not
chlorine levels should • If system evaluation a reclaimed including the
residual be continually storage ponds • The water additional
-1.0 mg/l after evaluated to are used, they distribution of transmission reclaimed
15-minute ensure the do not have to reclaimed facility to all water for
contact at peak reclaimed be lined water shall not potable water beneficial
hourly flow water will not • Reject storage produce supply wells reuse
• Alternative adversely ponds shall be surface runoff • 500 feet from treatment
methods of impact lined or sealed or ponding FW1 surface requirements
disinfection, vegetation to prevent • Land waters, • A chlorine
such as UV • Annual usage measurable application Pineland residual of
and ozone, report seepage sites shall not Waters and 0.5 mg/l or
may be • Existing or be frozen or Shellfish greater is
approved proposed saturated Waters recommended
• TSS - existing ponds (such as when applying • All other to reduce
treatment golf course reclaimed surface water odors, slime
requirements ponds) are water setback and bacterial
as specified in appropriate for distances shall re-growth
the NJPDES storage of be established • For a period of
permit for the reuse water if on a case-by- 15 days from
378
discharge the ability of case basis the last

• Total nitrogen the ponds to • 100 feet from application of
- 10 mg/l but function as outdoor public reclaimed
may be less stormwater eating, water, land
stringent if management drinking, and application
higher limit is systems is not bathing areas shall not
still protective impaired facilities be used for the
of environment grazing of
• Secondary cattle whose
milk is
intended for
human
consumption
New Mexico Fodder, fiber, • Fecal coliform

and seed crops: sample taken
• Primary at point of
effluent diversion to
Pastures for irrigation
milking cows system
• Adequately
Reclaimed Water
(1)
disinfected
• Fecal coliform
- 100/100 ml
New York • Secondary • Flow • Two weeks • Hydraulic - 3 • Required • 200 feet to • Spray irrigation
treatment and measurement plus any flow in/wk • Minimum of surface waters, should be
disinfection and generated in • Organic - 600 three off-field dwellings and practiced only
wastewater prohibited time lbs of wells public from May 1 to
characteristics period BOD/acre/day roadways November 30
(includes • Maximum and only
rainfall events) salinity - 1,000 during daylight
mg/l hours
• Categorized as
land treatment
North Dakota • If waste • Site specific • Areas readily
stabilization • Based on soils accessible to
ponds are type and type humans or
used of vegetation animals, such
- minimum 180 • Application as pastures
days capacity rates generally being grazed
without between by dairy
379
consideration 0.5 to 4 in/wk animals, hay

for evaporation crops ready for
• Representative harvesting, or
sample of garden crops
reclaimed for human
water must be consumption,
submitted to should not be
determine irrigated
suitability for
irrigation
Ohio • Biological Large system • Operational • Determined by • Monitoring • 100 feet to • Includes
treatment monitoring storage of 4 calculating a wells private water agricultural
• Disinfection (150,000 to times the daily water and upgradient and well sites where
should be 500,000 gpd): design flow nutrient downgradient • 300 feet to nonhuman
considered • Twice weekly needed balance of large community food crops are
• 40 mg/l for CBOD5, • Storage irrigation water well grown
CBOD5 total coliform provisions for systems • 100 feet to
• Fecal coliform (when at least 130 • Monitoring sink hole
(30-day irrigating) and days of design wells should • 50 feet to
average) storage average flow be sampled at drainage way
Reclaimed Water
(1)
- 23/100 ml volume needed for the beginning • 50 feet to
with no public • Monthly periods when and the end of surface water
access buffer monitoring for irrigation is not the irrigation • 100 feet to
- 1,000/100 ml total inorganic recommended season road right-of-
with 100 foot nitrogen • Actual storage way without
public access • Daily requirements windbreak
buffer monitoring for determined by using spray
- No flow performing irrigation
disinfection Small system water balance • 10 feet to road
necessary with monitoring: • Permits can be right-of-way
200 foot or (<150,000 gpd) obtained for with windbreak
more public • Weekly stream or with flood
access buffer monitoring of discharge irrigation
• Limits for CBOD5 and during winter • 50 feet to
metals storage and times of property line
volume high stream
• Monthly flow to reduce
monitoring of storage needs
total coliform
• Daily
380
monitoring of
flow
Oklahoma • Primary • Standby power • Required for • Based on the • 100 feet to
treatment required for periods when lower of the adjacent
continuity of available two rates property
operation wastewater calculated for • Additional
during power exceeds soil distance may
failures design permeability be required
hydraulic and nitrogen where
loading rate, requirements prevailing
and when the winds could
ground is cause aerosols
saturated or to drift into
frozen residential
• Based on areas
water balance • Buffer zone to
• Must provide be a part of the
at least 90 permitted site
Reclaimed Water
(1)
days of
storage above
that required
for primary
treatment
Oregon Pasture for Pasture for • Standby power Pasture for Pasture for
animals, sod, animals, sod, with capacity animals, sod, animals, sod,
ornamental ornamental to fully operate ornamental ornamental
nursery stock, nursery stock, all essential nursery stock, nursery stock,
christmas trees, christmas trees, treatment christmas trees, christmas trees,
and firewood and firewood processes and firewood and firewood
• Level II - • Total coliform • Redundant • 10-foot buffer • No animals on
biological sampling treatment with surface pasture during
treatment and - 1 time per facilities and irrigation irrigation
disinfection week monitoring • 70-foot buffer • No irrigation
• Total coliform Fodder, fiber, equipment to with spray 3 days prior to
- 240/100 ml and seed crops meet required irrigation harvesting
(2 consecutive not for human levels of Fodder, fiber, Fodder, fiber,
samples) ingestion and treatment and seed crops and seed crops
- 23/100 ml commercial • Alarm devices not for human not for human
381
(7 day median) timber to provide ingestion and ingestion and

Fodder, fiber, • None required warning of loss commercial commercial
and seed crops of power timber timber
not for human and/or failure • 10 foot buffer • No irrigation
ingestion and of process with surface for 30 days
commercial equipment irrigation prior to
timber • Site specific harvesting
• Level I - requirements • Spray irrigation
biological with spray may be
treatment irrigation permitted if it
can be
demonstrated
that public
health and the
environment
will be
adequately
protected from
aerosols
Pennsylvania • Secondary • Storage • Hydraulic • A minimum of • Categorized as
Reclaimed Water
(1)
treatment and requirements loading rates two wells must land
disinfection determined based on a be located application of
• Minimum of 85 using daily, water balance downgradient treated
percent weekly, or that includes of the sewage
removal of monthly water precipitation, application • Pertains to
CBOD5 and balance infiltration rate, area slow rate
TSS calculations evapotrans- infiltration
• Concentration • Seasonal piration, soil systems
levels based discharge to storage
on a 30-day surface waters capabilities,
average may be an and subsoil
- 25 mg/l alternative to permeability
CBOD5 storage • Application
- 30 mg/l TSS rates both site
• Fecal coliform and waste
- 200/100 ml specific
(monthly • Application
geometric rates greater
average) than 2 in/ac/wk
• pH 6 - 9 generally not
382
considered
South Carolina • Secondary • Nitrate • Hydraulic - • Required • 200 feet to

treatment and monitoring maximum of • One well surface waters
disinfection required 0.5-2 in/wk upgradient of the state,
• BOD5 and TSS depending on • Two wells occupied
- 30 mg/l depth to downgradient buildings, and
(monthly groundwater • At larger sites, potable water
average) • A nitrate to more wells
- 45 mg/l nitrogen monitoring • 100 feet to
(weekly loading wells may be property
average) balance may required boundary
• Total coliform be required
- 200/100 ml • Application
(monthly rates in excess
average) of 2 in/wk may
- 400/100 ml be approved
(daily provided the
maximum) application is
only for a
portion of the
Reclaimed Water
(1)
year; requires
a water
balance for the
summer
season
South Dakota • Secondary • Minimum of • Maximum • Shallow wells • 1 mile from • Does not
treatment 210 days application rate in all directions municipal include
capacity limited to of major water supply pastures used
without 2 in/acre/wk or groundwater • _ mile from for dairy
consideration a total of flow from site private grazing
for evaporation 24 in/acre/yr and no more domestic water
than 200 feet supply, lakes,
outside of the and human
site perimeter, habitation
spaced no • _ mile from
more than 500 state parks
feet apart, and and recreation
extending into areas unless
the disinfected
• 100 feet from
383
groundwater
table neighboring
• Shallow wells property lines
within the site or road right of
are also ways
recommended
Tennessee • Biological • Site specific • Storage • Nitrogen - • Required Surface Irrigation:
treatment requirements percolate • 100 feet to site
• Treated to a determined by nitrate-nitrogen boundary
level afforded either of two not to exceed • 50 feet to
by lagoons methods 1) 10 mg/l onsite streams,
• Disinfection use of water • Hydraulic - ponds, and
generally not balance based on roads
required, calculations or, water balance Spray Irrigation:
however can 2) use of a using 5-year [1] Open Fields
be required computer return monthly • 300 feet to site
when deemed program that precipitation boundary
necessary was developed • 150 feet to
based upon an onsite streams,
extensive ponds, and
Reclaimed Water
(1)
NOAA study of roads
climatic [2] Forested
United States • 75 feet to
onsite streams,
ponds, and
roads
Texas Type I reclaimed Type I reclaimed • Based on • Type I
water: water: water balance reclaimed
• 5 mg/l BOD5 or • Sampling and water can be
CBOD5 (30- analysis twice used for
day average) per week for irrigation of
• 10 mg/l for BOD5 or pastures for
landscape CBOD5, milking
impoundment turbidity, and animals
(30-day fecal coliform • Type II
average) Type II reclaimed reclaimed
• Turbidity water: water can be
- 3 NTU • Sampling and used for
• Fecal coliform
384
analysis once irrigation of

- 20/100 ml per week for sod farms,
(geometric BOD5 or silviculture,
mean) CBOD5 and and animal
- 75/100 ml fecal coliform feed crops
(not to exceed
in any sample)
Type II reclaimed
water:
• 30 mg/l BOD5
with treatment
using pond
system (30-
day average)
• 20 mg/l BOD5
or 15 mg/l
CBOD5 with
treatment other
than pond
system (30-
day average)
Reclaimed Water
(1)
• Fecal coliform
- 200/100 ml
(geometric
mean)
- 800/100 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
Utah Type I treated Type I treated • Alternative Type I treated • Type I
wastewater: wastewater: disposal option wastewater: reclaimed
• Secondary • Daily or diversion to • 50 feet to any water can be
treatment with composite storage potable water used for
filtration and sampling required in well irrigation of
disinfection required for case quality • Impoundments pastures for
• 10 mg/l BOD BOD requirements at least 500 milking
(monthly • Continuous not met feet from any animals
average) turbidity potable water • Type II
• Turbidity prior monitoring well reclaimed
to disinfection prior to Type II treated water can be
- not to exceed disinfection wastewater: used for
2 NTU (daily • Daily • 300 feet to any irrigation of
385
average) monitoring of potable water sod farms,

- not to exceed fecal coliform well silviculture,
5 NTU at any • Continuous • 300 feet to and animal
time total residual areas intended feed crops
• Fecal coliform chlorine for public
- none monitoring access
detected • pH monitored • Impoundments
(weekly continuously or at least 500
median as by daily grab feet from any
determined samples potable water
from daily grab Type II treated well
samples) wastewater: • Public access
- 14/100 ml • Weekly to effluent
(not to exceed composite storage and
in any sample) sampling irrigation or
• 1.0 mg/l total required for disposal sites
residual BOD to be restricted
chlorine after • Daily by a stocktight
30 minutes composite fence or other
contact time at sampling comparable
peak flow required for means
Reclaimed Water
(1)
• pH 6 - 9 TSS
Type II treated • Daily
wastewater: monitoring of
• Secondary fecal coliform
treatment with • pH monitored
disinfection continuously or
• 25 mg/l BOD by daily grab
(monthly samples
average)
• TSS
- 25 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 35 mg/l
(weekly mean)
• Fecal coliform
- 200/100 ml
(weekly
median)
– 800/100 ml
386
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• pH 6 - 9
Vermont • Minimum of • Multiple units • Storage sized • 2 in/wk for • 100 feet to • Categorized as
secondary required so that the systems with edge of any spray disposal
treatment • Alternative system can secondary surface water system
• Tertiary power source operate treated effluent • 200 feet to,
treatment with required effectively • 2.5 in/wk for habitation,
nitrogen and • Retention without having systems with property lines,
phosphorus pond or tank to spray during tertiary roads, or areas
removal can required with the spring treatment with frequented by
be provided volume runoff months nitrogen and the public
instead of sufficient to • Minimum phosphorus • 200 feet to any
secondary hold the design storage removal water supply
treatment flow for 48 capacity • Maximum
• BOD <30 mg/l hours required hourly
at any time - 45 days of application rate
• TSS <30 mg/l design flow of 0.25 in/hour
at any time based on
• Disinfection actual wetted
with 20 minute area
Reclaimed Water
(1)
chlorine
contact time
immediately
prior to
spraying
• 1.0 ppm free
chlorine
residual or 4.0
ppm total
chlorine
residual at the
spray nozzle
Washington Class D: • BOD – 24-hour • Warning • Storage • Hydraulic • May be Class D: • Class D
• Oxidized and composite alarms required when loading rate to required • 100 feet to reclaimed
disinfected samples independent of no approved be determined • Monitoring areas water can be
• Total coliform collected at normal power alternative based on a program will be accessible to used for
- 240/100 ml least weekly supply disposal detailed water based on the public and irrigation of
(7 day mean) • TSS – 24-hour • Back-up power system exists balance reclaimed the use area trees or fodder,
Class C: composite source • Storage analysis water quality property line fiber, and seed
• Oxidized and samples • Emergency volume and quantity, • 300 feet to any crops
• Class C
387
disinfected collected at storage: established by site specific potable water

• Total coliform least daily short-term, determining soil and supply reclaimed
- 23/100 ml • Total coliform 1 day; storage period hydrogeologic Class C: water can be
(7-day mean) and dissolved long-term, required for characteristics, • 50 feet to used for
- 240/100 ml oxygen 20 days duration of a and other areas irrigation of
(single sample) - grab samples • Multiple 10-year storm, considerations accessible to sod,
General collected at treatment units using a the public and ornamental
compliance least daily or storage or minimum of 20 use area plants for
requirements: • Continuous disposal years of property line commercial
• 30 mg/l BOD on-line options climatic data • 100 feet to any use, or pasture
and TSS monitoring of • Qualified • At a minimum, potable water to which
(monthly turbidity personnel system storage supply well milking cows
mean) available or on capacity or goats have
• Turbidity call at all times should be the access
- 2 NTU the irrigation volume equal
(monthly) system is to 3 times that
- 5 NTU operating portion of the
(not to exceed average daily
at any time) flow for which
• Minimum no alternative
chlorine reuse or
Reclaimed Water
(1)
residual of disposal
1 mg/l after a system is
contact time of permitted
30 minutes
West Virginia • Secondary • Frequency of • Minimum of 90 • Hydraulic - • Minimum of • Fence to be • Analysis of
treatment and reporting days storage maximum one well placed at least crop required
disinfection determined on to be provided application between 50 feet beyond at harvest if
• 30 mg/l BOD5 a case-by-case rates of project site and spray area used for
• 30 mg/l TSS basis 0.25 in/hr public well(s) • 350 feet from animal
0.50 in/day or high fence to consumption
2.0 in/wk capacity adjacent
private wells property lines
• Minimum of or highways
one well in unless low
each direction trajectory
of groundwater spray and/or
movement physical
buffers are
provided
Wisconsin • Biological, • Total daily flow • Storage • Determined on • Required for • 250 feet to • Categorized as
388
chemical, monitored lagoons a case-by-case design flows private water land disposal
physical or a • Monthly required for basis greater than supply wells
combination of monitoring for systems • Based on 0.015 mgd • 1,000 feet to
treatments total dissolved adversely hydrogeologic • Monitoring public water
necessary to solids, affected by conditions, soil may be supply wells
meet effluent chlorides, winter texture, required for
standards BOD5, organic conditions or permeability, elevation,
• Monthly nitrogen, wet weather cation BOD5, field
average BOD5 ammonia exchange specific
may not nitrogen and capacity, conductance,
exceed 50 mg/l nitrate plus topography, COD, organic
• Fecal coliform nitrite nitrogen cover crop, nitrogen,
bacteria limits • Fecal coliform and ammonia
based on bacteria wastewater nitrogen,
potential monitoring characteristics nitrate plus
impact to may be • Average nitrite nitrogen,
public health required on a hydraulic chlorides,
• Nitrogen limits case-by-case application rate sulfates, total
based on basis may not dissolved
needs of cover • Soil at each exceed 10,000 solids,
Reclaimed Water
(1)
crop plus individual gal/acre/day alkalinity,
demonstrable spray field hardness,
denitrification tested annually temperature,
for nitrogen, and pH
available
phosphorus,
available
potassium, and
pH
Class C wastewater to and equipment storage for the purpose adjacent irrigation on
wastewater- be analyzed • Alternative of beneficial property lines agricultural
primary for fecal power sources reuse and will • 30 feet to all lands
treatment and coliform, • Alarm systems not exceed the surface waters supporting
disinfection nitrate as N, and irrigation • 100 feet to all indirect food
• Fecal coliform ammonia as N, instrumenta- demand of the potable water chain crops
- 200/100 ml or and pH at a tion vegetation at supply wells • Animals not
greater but minimum • Operator the site • 100-foot buffer allowed to
less than • Monitoring certification • Not to be zone around graze on land
1000/100 ml frequency and standby applied at a spray site for 30 days
389
- once per capability rate greater Spray Irrigation: after reclaimed

month for • Bypass and than the • 100 feet to water
lagoon dewatering agronomic rate adjacent application
systems capability for the property lines
- once per • Emergency vegetation at and any public
week for storage the site right-of-way
mechanical • Will be applied Flood Irrigation:
systems in a manner • 30 feet to
• Frequency and time that adjacent
specified in will not cause property lines
NPDES permit any surface and any public
required if runoff or right-of-way
of a
groundwater
aquifer
Table A-5. Unrestricted Recreational Reuse
Reclaimed Water
California • Disinfected • Total coliform - • Warning • No
tertiary sampled at alarms impoundment
recycled water least once • Back-up power of disinfected
that has been daily from the source tertiary
subjected to disinfected • Multiple recycled water
conventional effluent treatment units within 100 feet
treatment (see • Turbidity - capable of of any
monitoring continuously treating entire domestic water
requirements if sampled flow with one supply well
recycled water following unit not in
has not filtration operation or
received Monitoring storage or
conventional requirements if disposal
treatment) - recycled water provisions
oxidized, has not received • Emergency
coagulated conventional storage or
(not required if treatment: disposal:
membrane • Sampled and short-term,
filtration is analyzed 1 day;
used and/or monthly for long-term,
390
turbidity Giardia, enteric 20 days

requirements viruses, and • Sufficient
are met), Cryptosporidium number of
clarified, for first 12 qualified
filtered, months and personnel
disinfected quarterly
• Total coliform thereafter
measured at a • Samples to be
point between taken at a
the disinfection point following
process and disinfection
the point of and prior to the
entry to the point where
use recycled water
impoundment enters the use
- 2.2/100 ml impoundment
(7 day median) • Ongoing
- 23/100 ml monitoring
(not to exceed may be
in more than discontinued
Reclaimed Water
one sample in after the first 2
any 30-day years of
period) operation with
- 240/100 ml approval
(maximum any
one sample)
• Turbidity
requirements
for wastewater
that has been
coagulated
and passed
through natural
undisturbed
soils or a bed
of filter media
- maximum
average of
2 NTU within a
24-hour period
391
- not to exceed
5 NTU more
than 5 percent
of the time
within a
24-hour period
- maximum of
10 NTU at any
time
• Turbidity
requirements
for wastewater
passed
through
membrane
- not to exceed
0.2 NTU more
than 5 percent
of the time
within a
Reclaimed Water
24-hour period
- maximum of
0.5 NTU at any
time
Colorado • Oxidized, • 500 feet from

coagulated, impoundment
clarified, to domestic
filtered, and supply well
disinfected • 100 feet from
• Total coliform impoundment
- 2.2/100 ml to any
(7-day median) irrigation well
- 23/100 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
period)
Nevada • At a minimum,
392
secondary
treatment with
disinfection
• 30 mg/l BOD5
• Fecal coliform
- 2.2/100 ml
(30-day
geometric
mean)
- 23/100 ml
(maximum
daily number)
Oregon • Level IV - • Total coliform • Standby power
biological sampling with capacity
treatment, - 1/day to fully operate
clarification, • Turbidity all essential
coagulation, - hourly treatment
filtration, and processes
disinfection • Redundant
• Total coliform treatment
Reclaimed Water
- 2.2/100 ml facilities and
(7-day median) monitoring
- 23/100 ml equipment to
(maximum any meet required
sample) levels of
• Turbidity treatment
- 2 NTU • Alarm devices
(24-hour to provide
mean) warning of loss
- 5 NTU of power
(5 percent of and/or failure
time during 24- of process
hour period) equipment
Texas • Type I • Sampling and
reclaimed analysis twice
water per week for
Reclaimed water BOD5 or
on a 30 day CBOD5,
average to have turbidity, and
a quality of: fecal coliform
• 5 mg/l BOD5 or
393
CBOD5
• Turbidity
- 3 NTU
• Fecal coliform
- 20/100 ml
(geometric
mean)
- 75/100 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
Utah • Type I treated • Daily • Alternative • Impoundments
wastewater composite disposal option at least 500
- secondary sampling or diversion to feet from any
treatment with required for storage potable water
filtration, and BOD required if well
disinfection • Continuous turbidity or
• 10 mg/l BOD turbidity chlorine
(monthly monitoring residual
average) prior to requirements
Reclaimed Water
• Turbidity prior disinfection not met
to disinfection • Daily
- not to exceed monitoring of
2 NTU (daily fecal coliform
average) • Continuous
- not to exceed total residual
5 NTU at any chlorine
time monitoring
• Fecal coliform • pH monitored
- none continuously or
detected by daily grab
(weekly samples
median as
determined
from daily grab
samples)
- 14/100 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• 1.0 mg/l total
394
residual
chlorine after
30 minutes
contact time at
peak flow
• pH 6 - 9
Washington • Class A - • BOD – 24-hour • Warning • Storage • May be • Unlined • Nutrient

oxidized, composite alarms required when required impoundments removal to
coagulated, samples independent of no approved • Monitoring will - 500 feet reduce levels
filtered, and collected at normal power alternative be based on between of phosphorus
disinfected least weekly supply disposal reclaimed perimeter and and/or nitrogen
• Total coliform • TSS – 24-hour • Back-up power system exists water quality any potable is
- 2.2/100 ml composite source • Storage and quantity, water supply recommended
(7-day mean) samples • Emergency volume site-specific well to minimize
- 23/100 ml collected at storage: short- established by soil and • Lined algal growths
(single sample) least daily term, 1 day; determining hydrogeologic impoundments and maintain
• 30 mg/l BOD • Total coliform long-term, 20 storage period characteristics, - 100 feet acceptable
and TSS and dissolved days required for and other between aesthetic
(monthly oxygen • Multiple duration of a considerations perimeter and conditions
Reclaimed Water
mean) - grab samples treatment units 10-year storm, any potable
• Turbidity collected at or storage or using a water supply
- 2 NTU least daily disposal minimum of 20 well
(monthly) • Continuous options years of
- 5 NTU on-line • Qualified climatic data
(not to exceed monitoring of personnel • At a minimum,
at any time) turbidity available or on system storage
• Minimum call at all times capacity
chlorine the irrigation should be the
residual of system is volume equal
1 mg/l after a operating to 3 times that
contact time of portion of the
30 minutes average daily
flow for which
no alternative
reuse or
disposal
system is
permitted
395
Table A-6. Restricted Recreational Reuse
Reclaimed Water
Arizona • Class A • Case-by-case
reclaimed basis
water-
secondary
treatment,
filtration, and
disinfection
• Chemical feed
facilities
required to add
coagulants or
polymers if
necessary to
meet turbidity
criterion
• Turbidity
- 2 NTU (24
hour average)
- 5 NTU (not to
exceed at any
396
time)
• Fecal coliform
- none
detectable in 4
of last 7 daily
samples
- 23/100 ml
(single sample
maximum)
California • Disinfected • Total coliform - • Warning • No • Includes any
secondary-2.2 sampled at alarms impoundment publicly
recycled water- least once • Back-up power of disinfected accessible
oxidized and daily from the source secondary-2.2 impoundments
disinfected disinfected • Multiple recycled water at fish
• Total coliform effluent treatment units within 100 feet hatcheries
- 2.2/100 ml capable of of any
(7-day median) treating entire domestic water
- 23/100 ml flow with one supply well
(not to exceed unit not in
in more than operation or
Reclaimed Water
one sample in storage or
any 30-day disposal
period) provisions
• Emergency
storage or
disposal:
short-term,
1 day;
long-term,
20 days
• Sufficient
number of
qualified
personnel
Colorado • Oxidized and • 500 feet from
disinfected impoundment
• Total coliform to domestic
- 2.2/100 ml supply well
(7-day median) • 100 feet from
impoundment
397
to any
irrigation well
Hawaii • R-1 water- • Daily flow • Multiple or • 20 days • Outer edge of
oxidized, monitoring standby units storage impoundment
filtered, and • Continuous required of required at least 100
disinfected turbidity sufficient unless it can feet from any
• Fecal coliform monitoring capacity to be drinking water
– 2.2/100 ml prior to and enable demonstrated supply well
(7-day median) after filtration effective that another
- 23/100 ml process operation with time period is
(not to exceed • Continuous any one unit adequate or
in more than measuring and out of service that no storage
one sample in recording of • Alarm devices is necessary
any 30-day chlorine required for • Storage
period) residual loss of power, requirements
- 200/100 ml • Daily high water based on
(maximum any monitoring of levels, failure water balance
one sample) fecal coliform of pumps or using at least a
• Inactivation • Weekly blowers, high 30 year record
and/or removal monitoring of head loss on • Reject storage
Reclaimed Water
of 99.999 BOD5 and filters, high required with a
percent of the suspended effluent volume equal
plaque-forming solids turbidity, loss to 1 day of
units of F- of coagulant or flow at the
specific polymer feed, average daily
bacteriophage and loss of design flow
MS2, or polio chlorine • Emergency
virus residual system storage
• Effluent • Standby power not required
turbidity not to source where an
exceed 2 NTU required for alternate
• Chemical treatment plant effluent
pretreatment and distribution disposal
facilities pump stations system has
required in all been approved
cases where
granular media
filtration is
used; not
required for
398
facilities using
membrane
filtration
• Theoretical
chlorine
contact time of
120 minutes
and actual
modal contact
time of 90
minutes
throughout
which the
chlorine
residual is
5 mg/l
Nevada • At a minimum, • Pertains to
secondary impoundments
treatment with where full body
disinfection contact with
Reclaimed Water
• 30 mg/l BOD5 the treated
• Fecal coliform effluent cannot
- 2.2/100 ml reasonably be
(30 day expected
geometric
mean)
- 23/100 ml
(maximum
daily number)
Oregon • Level III • Total coliform • Standby power
- biological sampling with capacity
treatment and - 3/week to fully operate
disinfection all essential
• Total coliform treatment
- 2.2/100 ml processes
(7-day median) • Redundant
- 23/100 ml treatment
(maximum any facilities and
sample) monitoring
equipment to
399
meet required
levels of
treatment
• Alarm devices
to provide
warning of loss
of power
and/or failure
of process
equipment
Texas • Type II • Sampling and
reclaimed analysis once
water per week for
Reclaimed water BOD5 or
on a 30-day CBOD5 and
average to have fecal coliform
a quality of:
• 30 mg/l BOD5
with treatment
using pond
Reclaimed Water
system
• 20 mg/l BOD5
or 15 mg/l
CBOD5 with
treatment other
than pond
system
• Fecal coliform
- 200/100 ml
(geometric
mean)
- 800/100 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
Utah • Type II treated • Weekly • Alternative • Impoundments
wastewater - composite disposal option at least 500
secondary sampling or diversion to feet from any
treatment with required for storage potable water
disinfection BOD required in well
• 25 mg/l BOD • Daily case quality
400
(monthly composite requirements

average) sampling not met
• TSS required for
- 25 mg/l TSS
(monthly • Daily
average) monitoring of
- 35 mg/l fecal coliform
(weekly mean) • pH monitored
• Fecal coliform continuously or
- 200/100 ml by daily grab
(weekly samples
median)
– 800/100 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• pH 6 - 9
Washington • Class B - • BOD – 24-hour • Warning • Storage • May be • Unlined • Nutrient
oxidized and composite alarms required when required impoundments removal to
disinfected samples independent of no approved • Monitoring - 500 feet reduce levels
• Total coliform collected at normal power alternative program will be between of phosphorus
Reclaimed Water
- 2.2/100 ml least weekly supply disposal based on perimeter and and/or nitrogen
(7-day mean) • TSS – 24-hour • Back-up power system exists reclaimed any potable is
- 23/100 ml composite source • Storage water quality water supply recommended
(single sample) samples • Emergency volume and quantity, well to minimize
• 30 mg/l BOD collected at storage: established by site specific • Lined algal growths
and TSS least daily short-term, determining soil and impoundments and maintain
(monthly • Total coliform 1 day; storage period hydrogeologic - 100 feet acceptable
mean) and dissolved long-term, required for characteristics, between aesthetic
• Turbidity oxygen 20 days duration of a and other perimeter and conditions
- 2 NTU - grab samples • Multiple 10-year storm, considerations any potable
(monthly) collected at treatment units using a water supply
- 5 NTU least daily or storage or minimum of 20 well
(not to exceed • Continuous disposal years of
at any time) on-line options climatic data
• Minimum monitoring of • Qualified • At a minimum,
chlorine turbidity personnel system storage
residual of available or on capacity
1 mg/l after a call at all times should be the
contact time of the irrigation volume equal
30 minutes system is to three times
401
operating that portion of

the average
daily flow for
which no
alternative
reuse or
disposal
system is
permitted
Table A-7. Environmental – Wetlands
Reclaimed Water
(1)
Florida Treatment • Reclaimed • Maximum • The discharge
wetland: water shall be annual of reclaimed
• Secondary stored in a average water to
treatment with holding pond hydraulic treatment or
nitrification • The holding loading of receiving
• 20 mg/l CBOD5 pond will have 2 in/wk except wetlands shall
and TSS sufficient in minimize
(annual storage hydrologically channelized
average) capacity to altered flow and
• 2 mg/l total assure wetlands - maximize
ammonia retention of maximum of sheet flow in
(monthly reclaimed 6 in/wk the wetland,
average) water that has • Treatment minimize the
Receiving not been wetland loss of
wetland: treated to an - total nitrogen dissolution of
• 5 mg/l CBOD5 acceptable loading rate sediments due
and TSS quality for not to exceed to erosion or
2
(annual discharge to a 25 g/m /yr leaching, and
average) treatment or - total not cause
• 3 mg/l total receiving phosphorus adverse effects
402
nitrogen wetland loading rate on endangered

(annual • At a minimum, not to exceed or threatened
2
average) this capacity 3 g/m /yr species
• 1 mg/l total will be the • Hydrologically • Discharge of
phosphorus volume equal altered wetland reclaimed
(annual to 1 day of flow - total nitrogen water to
average) at the loading rate wetlands
• 2 mg/l total permitted not to exceed located within
2
ammonia capacity of the 75 g/m /yr Class I surface
(monthly treatment plant - total waters
average) phosphorus considered
loading rate reuse for
not to exceed indirect potable
2
9 g/m /yr purposes
South Dakota • Pretreatment • Minimum • Maximum • A minimum of • The entire • Applies to

with recommended hydraulic three wells, wetland area artificial
stabilization storage design loading one upgradient to be enclosed wetland
ponds capacity in flow through and two with a suitable systems
stabilization rate on artificial downgradient fence to • Reviewed on a
Reclaimed Water
(1)
pond system of wetlands of of the site, may provide public site-by-site
150 days 25,000 be required safety, exclude basis
• Minimum gal/acre/day • At a minimum, livestock, and
combined parameters to discourage
storage be sampled trespassing
capacity of 180 include
days in temperature,
stabilization pH,
ponds and conductivity,
artificial nitrate,
wetland areas ammonia, fecal
coliform,
nitrites,
chlorides,
TDS, sulfate,
and GW
elevations
Washington Natural and • BOD, TSS, • Warning • Storage • Not to exceed • May be • Unlined or • Discharge to
constructed Kjeldahl alarms required when an additional required unsealed Category I
• Groundwater
403
beneficial use nitrogen, independent of no approved average wetland wetlands or to

wetlands that ammonia- normal power alternative annual monitoring - 500 feet saltwater
provide potential nitrogen, total supply disposal hydraulic may be between dominated
human contact, phosphorus, • Back-up power system exists loading rate of required for a perimeter and wetlands is not
recreational, or and metals source • Storage 2 cm/day to sufficient any potable permitted
educational - 24-hour • Emergency volume Category II length of time water supply • Reclaimed
beneficial uses: composite storage: established by wetlands and to determine well water intended
• Class A - samples short-term, determining 3 cm/day to that the • Lined or for beneficial
oxidized, collected 1 day; storage period Category III application of sealed wetland reuse may be
coagulated, weekly long-term, required for and IV reclaimed - 100 feet discharged for
filtered, and • Total coliform 20 days duration of a wetlands water will not between streamflow
disinfected - grab samples • Multiple 10-year storm, • Maximum degrade perimeter and augmentation
• Total coliform collected at treatment units using a annual existing any potable provided the
- 2.2/100 ml least daily or storage or minimum of 20 average groundwater water supply reclaimed
(7-day mean) • Continuous disposal years of hydraulic quality well water meets
- 23/100 ml flow monitoring options climatic data loading rate to • Depends on certain
(single sample) • Qualified • At a minimum, constructed parameter requirements
Natural and personnel system storage beneficial use concentrations
constructed available or on capacity wetlands is in reclaimed
beneficial use call at all times should be the limited to water and the
Reclaimed Water
(1)
wetlands that the irrigation volume equal 5 cm/day groundwater
provide fisheries, system is to 3 times that • Hydraulic quality criteria
or potential operating portion of the loading rate
human non- average daily determined as
contact flow for which the ratio of the
recreational or no alternative average
educational reuse or annual flow
beneficial uses: disposal rate of
• Class B - system is reclaimed
oxidized and permitted water to the
disinfected effective
• Total coliform wetted area of
- 2.2/100 ml the wetland
(7-day mean)
- 23/100 ml
(single sample)
Natural wetlands
that provide
potential non-
contact
404
recreational or
educational
beneficial uses
through restricted
access
• Class C -
oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
- 23/100 ml
(7-day mean)
- 240/100 ml
(single sample)
General
compliance
requirements:
• 20 mg/l BOD
and TSS
(average
annual basis)
Reclaimed Water
(1)
• 3 mg/l total
Kjeldahl
nitrogen
(average
annual basis)
• Total ammonia
nitrogen not to
exceed
Washington
chronic
standards for
freshwater
• 1 mg/l total
phosporus
(average
annual basis)
• Metals not to
exceed
Washington
surface water
405
quality
standards
Table A-8. Industrial Reuse
Reclaimed Water
(1)
California Cooling water that Cooling water • Warning • Whenever a
creates a mist: that creates a alarms cooling
• Disinfected mist: • Back-up power system, using
tertiary recycled • Total coliform source recycled water
water -oxidized, - sampled at • Multiple in conjunction
coagulated (not least once treatment units with an air
required if daily from the capable of conditioning
membrane disinfected treating entire facility, uses a
filtration is used effluent flow with one cooling tower
and/or turbidity • Turbidity unit not in or otherwise
requirements - continuously operation or creates a mist
are met), sampled storage or that could
filtered, following disposal come into
disinfected filtration provisions contact with
• Total coliform Cooling water • Emergency employees or
- 2.2/100 ml that does not storage or members of
(7-day median) create a mist: disposal: the public, the
- 23/100 ml (not • Total coliform short-term, cooling system
to exceed in - sampled at 1 day; shall comply
more than one least once long-term, with the
406
sample in any daily from the 20 days following:

30-day period) disinfected • Sufficient - a drift
- 240/100 ml effluent number of eliminator shall
(maximum any qualified be used
one sample) personnel whenever the
• Turbidity cooling system
requirements is in operation
for wastewater - a chlorine, or
that has been other biocide,
coagulated and shall be used
passed through to treat the
natural cooling system
undisturbed recirculating
soils or a bed of water to
filter media minimize the
- maximum growth of
average of Legionella and
2 NTU within a other micro-
24-hour period organisms
- not to exceed • Reclaimed
5 NTU more water can also
Reclaimed Water
(1)
than 5 percent be used for
of the time industrial boiler
within a feed and
24-hour period industrial
- maximum of process water
10 NTU at any
time
• Turbidity
requirements
for wastewater
passed through
membrane
- not to exceed
0.2 NTU more
than 5 percent
of the time
within a 24-
hour period
- maximum of
0.5 NTU at any
407
time
Cooling water that
does not create a
mist:
• Disinfected
secondary-23
recycled water-
oxidized and
disinfected
• Total coliform
- 23/100 ml
(7-day median)
- 240/100 ml
(not to exceed
in more than
one sample in
any 30-day
period)
Florida Once-through Once-through Open cooling Once-through Once-through • Allows use of

cooling water and cooling water, water tower cooling water, cooling water, reclaimed
Reclaimed Water
(1)
process water at wash water or applications: wash water or wash water or water for
wastewater process water: • Class I process water: process water: cooling water,
treatment plants: • Parameters to reliability - • System • Setback wash water, or
• Secondary be monitored requires storage ponds distances from process water
treatment and sampling multiple or not required the industrial at industrial
• 20 mg/l CBOD5 frequency to back-up Open cooling process or facilities
and TSS be identified in treatment units water tower activity to the • Reclaimed
(annual wastewater and a applications: site property water that has
average) facility permit secondary • At a minimum, line not not been
• 30 mg/l CBOD5 • Minimum power source system storage required disinfected
and TSS schedule for • Minimum capacity shall Open cooling may be used
(monthly sampling and reject storage be the volume water tower for once-
average) testing based capacity equal equal to 3 applications: through
• 45 mg/l CBOD5 on system to 1 day flow at times the • None required cooling
and TSS capacity the average portion of the if the reclaimed purposes at
(weekly established for daily design average daily water has industrial
average) flow, pH, flow of the flow for which received facilities if the
• 60 mg/l CBOD5 chlorine treatment plant no alternative secondary reclaimed
and TSS residual, or the average reuse or treatment with water has
(single sample) dissolved daily permitted disposal filtration and received at
• pH 6 - 8.5
408
oxygen, flow of the system is high-level least

Wash water or suspended reuse system, permitted disinfection secondary
process water: solids, CBOD5, whichever is • Water balance • 300-foot treatment, is
• Secondary nutrients, and less required with setback conveyed and
treatment and fecal coliform • Minimum volume of distance used in closed
basic • Primary and system size of storage based provided from systems which
disinfection secondary 0.1 mgd (not on a 10-year the cooling are not open to
• 20 mg/l CBOD5 drinking water required for recurrence tower to the the
and TSS standards to toilet flushing interval and a site property atmosphere,
(annual be monitored and fire minimum of 20 lines if and is returned
average) by facilities > protection years of reclaimed to the domestic
• 30 mg/l CBOD5 100,000 gpd uses) climatic data water has wastewater
and TSS Open cooling • Staffing - • Not required if received treatment
(monthly water tower 24 hrs/day, alternative secondary facility
average) applications: 7 days/wk or system is treatment and • Reclaimed
• 45 mg/l CBOD5 • Parameters to 6 hrs/day, incorporated basic water that has
and TSS be monitored 7 days/wk with into the system disinfection received
(weekly and sampling diversion of design to secondary
average) frequency to reclaimed ensure treatment and
• 60 mg/l CBOD5 be identified in water to reuse continuous basic
and TSS wastewater system only facility disinfection
Reclaimed Water
(1)
(single sample) facility permit during periods operation can be used in
• Chlorine • Minimum of operator open cooling
residual of schedule for presence towers if a
0.5 mg/l sampling and 300-foot
maintained testing based setback
after at least 15 on system distance is
minutes contact capacity provided to the
time at peak established for property line,
flow flow, pH, the cooling
• Fecal coliform chlorine tower is
- 200/100 ml residual, designed and
(annual dissolved operated to
average) oxygen, minimize
- 200/100 ml suspended aerosol drift to
(monthly solids, CBOD5, areas beyond
geometric nutrients, and the site
mean) fecal coliform property line
- 400/100 ml • Continuous that are
(not to exceed on-line accessible to
in more than 10 monitoring of the public, and
409
percent of turbidity prior biological

samples in a to disinfection growth is
30-day period) • Continuous controlled
- 800/100 ml on-line
(single sample) monitoring of
• pH 6 - 8.5 total chlorine
• Limitations to residual or
be met after residual
disinfection concentrations
Open cooling of other
water tower disinfectants
applications: • Monitoring for
• Secondary Giardia and
treatment with Cryptosporidium
filtration and - sampling one
high-level time during
disinfection each 2 year
• Chemical feed period
facilities to be - samples to
provided be taken
• 20 mg/l CBOD5 immediately
Reclaimed Water
(1)
(annual following
average) disinfection
• 5 mg/l TSS process
(single sample) • Primary and
to be met after secondary
filtration and drinking water
prior to standards to
disinfection be monitored
• Total chlorine by facilities >
residual of at 100,000 gpd
least 1 mg/l
after a
minimum
acceptable
contact time of
15 minutes at
peak hourly
flow
• Fecal coliform
- over 30-day
410
period, 75
percent of
samples below
detection limits
- 25/100 ml
(single sample)
• pH 6 - 8.5
• Limitations to
be met after
disinfection
Hawaii Cooling water that • Daily flow • Multiple or • 20 days • Can be used
emits vapor or monitoring standby units storage for industrial
droplets or an • Continuous required of required cooling in a
industrial process turbidity sufficient unless it can system that
with exposure to monitoring capacity to be does not have
workers: prior to and enable demonstrated a cooling
• R-1 water- after filtration effective that another tower,
oxidized, process operation with time period is evaporative
filtered, and • Continuous any one unit adequate or condenser, or
disinfected measuring and out of service that no storage other feature
Reclaimed Water
(1)
• Fecal coliform recording of • Alarm devices is necessary that emits
- 2.2/100 ml chlorine required for • Storage vapor or
(7-day median) residual loss of power, requirements droplets to the
- 23/100 ml (not • Daily high water based on open
to exceed in monitoring of levels, failure water balance atmosphere or
more than one fecal coliform of pumps or using at least a to air to be
sample in any • Weekly blowers, high 30 year record passed into a
30-day period) monitoring of head loss on • Reject storage building or
- 200/100 ml BOD5 and filters, high required with a other
(maximum any suspended effluent volume equal enclosure
one sample) solids turbidity, loss to 1 day of flow occupied by a
• Inactivation of coagulant or at the average person
and/or removal polymer feed, daily design • Can be used
of 99.999 and loss of flow as supply for
percent of the chlorine • Emergency addition to a
plaque-forming residual system storage cooling system
units of F- • Standby power not required or air
specific source where an conditioning
bacteriophage required for alternate system with a
MS2, or polio treatment plant effluent cooling tower,
411
virus and disposal evaporative

• Effluent distribution system has condenser, or
turbidity not to pump stations been approved other feature
exceed 2 NTU that emits
• Chemical vapor or
pretreatment droplets to the
facilities open
required in all atmosphere or
cases where to air to be
granular media passed into a
filtration is building or
used; not other
required for enclosure
facilities using occupied by a
membrane person, when
filtration all of the
• Theoretical following
chlorine contact occurs: a high
time of 120 efficiency drift
minutes and reducer is
actual modal used and the
Reclaimed Water
(1)
contact time of system is
90 minutes maintained to
throughout avoid greater
which the rate of
chlorine generation of
residual is drift than that
5 mg/l which a high
Cooling water that efficiency drift
does not emit reducer is
vapor or droplets, associated; a
an industrial continuous
process without biocide
exposure to residual,
workers or sufficient to
industrial boiler prevent
feed: bacterial
• R-2 water- population
oxidized and from
disinfected exceeding
• Fecal coliform 10,000/ml is
412
- 23/100 ml maintained in
(7-day median) circulating
- 200/100 ml water; and the
(not to exceed system is
in more than inspected by
one sample in an operator
any 30-day capable of
period) determining
• Theoretical compliance at
chlorine contact least once per
time of 15 day
minutes and
actual modal
contact time of
10 minutes
throughout
which the
chlorine
residual is
0.5 mg/l
Reclaimed Water
(1)
New Jersey • Requires a • Submission of • Not required • Worker contact
case-by-case Standard when another with reclaimed
review Operations permitted water shall be
• Fecal coliform Procedure that reuse system minimized
- 200/100 ml ensures proper or effluent • Windblown
(monthly disinfection to disposal spray shall not
average, the required system is reach areas
geometric level of incorporated accessible to
mean) 1.0 mg/l into the system the public
- 400/100 ml • Annual usage design • Secondary
(maximum any report • If system treatment, for
one sample storage ponds the purpose of
• Minimum are used, they the manual,
chlorine do not have to refers to the
residual be lined existing
- 1.0 mg/l after • Reject storage treatment
15 minute ponds shall be requirements
contact at peak lined or sealed in the NJPDES
hourly flow to prevent permit, not
• TSS measurable including the
413
requirements seepage additional

applies to the • Existing or reclaimed
existing proposed water for
treatment ponds (such as beneficial
requirements golf course reuse
as specified in ponds) are treatment
the NJPDES appropriate for requirements
permit for the storage of
discharge reuse water if
• Secondary the ability of
the ponds to
function as
stormwater
management
systems is not
impaired
North Carolina • Tertiary quality • Continuous • All essential • Determined • Includes

effluent (filtered on-line treatment units using a mass reclaimed
or equivalent) monitoring and to be provided water balance water used for
• TSS recording for in duplicate based upon a process water
Reclaimed Water
(1)
- 5 mg/l turbidity or • Five-day side recent 25-year and cooling
(monthly particle count stream period using water
average) and flow prior detention pond monthly purposes
- 10 mg/l (daily to discharge required for average
maximum) effluent precipitation
• Fecal coliform exceeding data, potential
- 14/100 ml turbidity or evapotrans-
(monthly fecal coliform piration,data,
geometric limits and soil
mean) • Automatically drainage data
- 25/100 ml activated • No storage
(daily standby power facilities
maximum) source to be required if it
• BOD5 provided can be
- 10 mg/l • Certified demonstrated
(monthly operator on that other
average) call 24 hrs/day permitted
- 15 mg/l (daily with a grade disposal
maximum) level options are
• NH3 equivalent to available
414
- 4 mg/l or greater than

(monthly the facility
average) classification
- 6 mg/l (daily
maximum)
exceed 10 NTU
at any time
Oregon • Level II is • Total coliform • Standby power • Use of
minimum sampling with capacity reclaimed
treatment for - Once a week to fully operate water in
industrial or all essential evaporative
commercial treatment cooling
uses processes systems will be
- biological • Redundant approved only
treatment and treatment if the user can
disinfection facilities and demonstrate
• Total coliform monitoring that aerosols
- 240/100 ml equipment to will not present
(2 consecutive meet required a hazard to
samples) levels of public health
Reclaimed Water
(1)
- 23/100 ml treatment
(7-day median) • Alarm devices
to provide
warning of loss
of power
and/or failure
of process
equipment
Texas Cooling tower • Sampling and • Use for cooling
makeup water analysis once towers which
• Type II per week for produce
reclaimed water BOD5 or significant
Reclaimed water CBOD5 and aerosols
on a 3- day fecal coliform adjacent to
average to have a public access
quality of: areas may
• 30 mg/l BOD5 have special
with treatment requirements
using pond
system
• 20 mg/l BOD5
415
or 15 mg/l
CBOD5 with
treatment other
than pond
system
• Fecal coliform
- 200/100 ml
(geometric
mean)
- 800/100 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
Reclaimed Water
(1)
Utah Cooling water: • Weekly • Alternative • Use for cooling
• Type II treated composite disposal option towers which
wastewater - sampling or diversion to produce
secondary required for storage aerosols in
treatment with BOD required in populated
disinfection • Daily case quality areas may
• 25 mg/l BOD composite requirements have special
(monthly sampling not met restrictions
average) required for imposed
• TSS TSS
- 25 mg/l • Daily
(monthly monitoring of
average) fecal coliform
- 35 mg/l • pH monitored
(weekly continuously or
average) by daily grab
• Fecal coliform samples
- 200/100 ml
(weekly
median)
416
- 800/100 ml
(not to exceed
in any sample)
• pH 6 - 9
Washington Industrial boiler • BOD – 24- • Warning • Storage

feed, industrial hour alarms required when
cooling water composite independent of no approved
where aerosols or samples normal power alternative
other mists are collected at supply disposal
not created, and least weekly • Back-up power system exists
industrial process • TSS – 24-hour source • Storage
water with no composite • Emergency volume
exposure to samples storage: established by
workers: collected at short-term, determining
• Class C - least daily 1 day; storage period
oxidized and • Total coliform long-term, required for
disinfected and dissolved 20 days duration of a
• Total coliform oxygen • Multiple 10-year storm,
- 23/100 ml - grab samples treatment units using a
(7-day mean) collected at or storage or minimum of 20
Reclaimed Water
(1)
- 240/100 ml least daily disposal years of
(single sample) • Continuous options climatic data
Industrial cooling on-line • Qualified • At a minimum,
water where monitoring of personnel system storage
aerosols or other turbidity available or on capacity
mists are created call at all times should be
and industrial the irrigation equal to 3
process water system is times that
with exposure to operating portion of the
workers: average daily
• Class A - flow for which
oxidized, no alternative
coagulated, reuse or
filtered, and disposal
disinfected system is
• Total coliform permitted
- 2.2/100 ml
(7-day mean)
- 23/100 ml
(single sample)
417
General
compliance
requirements:
• 30 mg/l BOD
and TSS
(monthly mean)
• Turbidity
- 2 NTU
(monthly)
- 5 NTU
(not to exceed
at any time)
• Minimum
chlorine
residual of
1 mg/l after a
contact time of
30 minutes
Table A-9. Groundwater Recharge
Reclaimed Water
California • Determined on
a case-by-case
basis
• Based on all
relevant
aspects of each
project,
including the
following
factors:
treatment
provided;
effluent quality
and quantity;
spreading area
operations; soil
characteristics;
hydrogeology;
residence time
418
and distance to
withdrawal
Florida Use of rapid-rate • Continuous • Class I • System • Reasonable • Required • Zones of • Rapid-rate
land application on-line reliability - storage not assurances • 1 upgradient discharge not application
systems: monitoring for requires required must be well located as to extend systems that
• Secondary turbidity before multiple or • If system provided that close as closer than result in the
treatment and applicaton of backup storage is the hydraulic possible to the 500 feet to a collection and
basic the disinfectant treatment units provided, at a loading rates site without potable water discharge of
disinfection • Continuous and a minimum, used in the being affected supply well more than 50
• Fecal coliform - monitoring for secondary system storage design must by the site’s • 1,000 foot percent of the
200/100 ml chlorine power source capacity shall enable the discharge setback applied
(annual residual or for • For treatment be the volume system to (background distance from reclaimed
average) residual facilities equal to three comply with well) injection well water will be
- 200/100 ml concentrations required to times the the • 1 well at the used for considered
(monthly of other provide full portion of the requirements edge of the salinity barrier effluent
geometric disinfectants treatment and average daily while meeting zone of control to disposal
mean) • Treatment disinfection - flow for which applicable discharge potable water systems
- 400/100 ml facilities minimum reject no alternative groundwater down-gradient supply wells • Involves the
(not to exceed designed to storage reuse or quality of the site • 500 feet to planned use of
Reclaimed Water
in more than meet the full capacity equal disposal standards (compliance potable water reclaimed
10% of treatment and to three day’s system is • A groundwater well) supply wells water to
samples in a 30 disinfection flow at the permitted mounding • 1 well that are augment Class
day period) requirements average daily • Water balance analysis is to downgradient existing or F-1, G-1, or
- 800/100 ml to sample for permitted flow required with be included in from the site have been G-II
(single sample) TOC and total of the volume of the and within the approved; groundwaters
• 10 mg/l TSS organic treatment plant storage based engineering zone of Class I surface identified for
(single sample) halogen daily, or the average on a 10-year report and discharge waters; or potable water
prior to seven days per daily permitted recurrence should provide (intermediate Class II use and
discharge to week flow of the interval and a reasonable well) surface waters defined as
the application/ • Total coliforms reuse system, minimum of 20 assurances • 1 well located • Setback groundwater
distribution and TSS whichever is years of that the adjacent to distance to recharge in
system for analyzed daily less climatic data proposed unlined Class I and regulations
absorption field if treatment • If full treatment • Not required if project will storage ponds Class II • Types of
systems facility is and alternative function as or lakes surface waters groundwater
• Nitrate required to disinfection is system is intended and • Other wells reduced to 100 recharge
- 12 mg/l as meet not required, incorporated will not result may be feet if high- systems
nitrogen bacteriological the capacity into the system in excessive required level include
Use of rapid-rate requirements requirement for design to mounding of depending on disinfection is injection of
419
land application of the drinking reject storage ensure groundwaters, site-specific provided reclaimed
systems for water shall be continuous increases in criteria • 100 feet to water into
projects standards reduced to one facility surface water • Quarterly buildings not Class F-1, G-1,
considered reuse • Parameters day’s flow operation elevations, monitoring part of the or G-II
for groundwater listed as • Reject storage property required for treatment groundwaters,
recharge under primary will not be damage or water level, facility, utilities specific rapid-
62-610.525: drinking water required if interference nitrate, total system or rate land
• Secondary standards that another with dissolved municipal application
treatment with are imposed permitted reasonable solids, arsenic, operations systems, use
filtration and as reclaimed reuse system use of property cadmium, • 100 feet to site of reclaimed
high-level water limits to or effluent within the chloride, property line water to create
disinfection be analyzed disposal affected area chromium, • Some setback barriers to the
• Chemical feed monthly system is lead, fecal distances may landward or
facilities to be • Parameters capable of coliform, pH be reduced if upward
provided listed as discharging and sulfate certain migration of
• 5 mg/l TSS secondary the reject • Monitoring treatment salt water
(single sample) drinking water water in may be requirements within Class
to be achieved standards that accordance required for are met and F-1, G-1, or
prior to are imposed with additional assurances G-II
Reclaimed Water
disinfection as reclaimed requirements parameters are provided groundwaters
• Total nitrogen water limits to • Minimum based on site and discharge
- 10 mg/l be analyzed system size of specific to surface
(maximum quarterly 0.1 MGD conditions and waters which
annual • pH - daily • Staffing - groundwater are directly
average) • Except for total 24 hrs/day, quality connected to
• Primary (except coliforms and 7 days/wk for Class F-1, G-I
asbestos and pH, 24-hour systems or G-II
bacteriological composite required to groundwaters
parameters) samples to be provide full • Public
and secondary used for treatment and notification and
drinking water parameters disinfection public hearing
standards must listed as - reduced requirements
be met primary or staffing • Pilot testing is
• pH to fall within secondary requirement to required for all
range drinking water 6 hrs/day, projects that
established in standards 7 days/wk may are required to
secondary • Unregulated be approved provide full
drinking water organic for systems not treatment and
420
standards contaminants required to disinfection

Groundwater to be sampled provide full
recharge by annually for treatment with
injection of Class some types of diversion of
G-1 and F-1 projects reclaimed
groundwaters and • Monitoring for water to reuse
Class G-II Giardia and system only
groundwaters Cryptosporidium during periods
containing 3000 required of operator
mg/l or less of quarterly or presence and
TDS: one time other
• Secondary during each provisions for
treatment with two-year increased
filtration and period reliability
high-level depending on
disinfection type of project
• Chemical feed • Parameters to
facilities to be be monitored
provided and sampling
Reclaimed Water
• 5 mg/l TSS frequency to
(single sample) be identified in
to be achieved wastewater
prior to facility permit
disinfection • Minimum
• Total nitrogen schedule for
- 10 mg/l sampling and
(maximum testing based
annual on system
average) capacity
• Primary (except
asbestos) and
secondary
drinking water
standards must
be met
• pH to fall within
range
established in
421
secondary
drinking water
standards
• TOC
- 3 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 5 mg/l
(single sample)
• Total organic
halogen (TOX)
- 0.2 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 0.3 mg/l
(single sample)
• Alternative
TOC and TOX
limitations may
Reclaimed Water
be approved if
certain
conditions are
met
Groundwater
recharge by
injection of Class
G-II groundwaters
containing greater
than 3000 mg/l of
TDS:
• Same
treatment and
water quality
requirements
as above
except TOC,
TOX and
secondary
422
drinking water
requirements
do not apply
• Limitations to
be met before
injection to
groundwater
Hawaii • Determined on • Determined on • Multiple or • 20 days • Required • Department of

a case-by-case a case-by-case standby units storage • Groundwater Health
basis basis required of required monitoring evaluation of
• Recycled water sufficient unless it can system may proposed
used for capacity to be consist of a groundwater
groundwater enable demonstrated number of recharge
recharge by effective that another lysimeters projects and
surface or operation with time period is and/or expansion of
subsurface any one unit adequate or monitoring existing
application out of service that no storage wells projects made
shall be at all • Alarm devices is necessary depending on on an
Reclaimed Water
times of a required for • Storage site size, site individual case
quality that fully loss of power, requirements characteristics, basis where
protects public high water based on location, the use of
health levels, failure water balance method of reclaimed
• Projects that of pumps or using at least a discharge and water involves
are over an blowers, high 30-year record other a potential risk
aquifer head loss on • Reject storage appropriate to public health
classified as filters, high required with a considerations • Evaluation
nonpotable, effluent volume equal • One well based on all
where the turbidity, loss to 1 day of flow upgradient and relevant
design monthly of coagulant or at the average two wells aspects of
(deep) polymer feed, daily design downgradient each project
percolation rate and loss of flow for project sites including
(DMPR) is chlorine • Emergency 500 acres or treatment
greater than 20 residual system storage more provided,
percent of the • Standby power not required • One well effluent quality
maximum source where an within the and quantity,
monthly required for alternate wetted field effluent or
application rate treatment plant effluent area for each application
423
minus the and disposal project whose spreading area

DMPR, will be distribution system has surface area is operation, soil
designated as a pump stations been approved greater than or characteristics,
recharge equal to 1500 hydrogeology,
project acres residence time,
• Projects that • One lysimeter and distance to
are over an per 200 acres withdrawal
aquifer • One lysimeter • A public
classified as for project sites hearing or a
potable, where that have public
the application greater than 40 referendum is
rates exceed but less than required for the
the 200 acres DOH to review
consumptive • Additional a request to
evapotranspira- lysimeters may augment a
tion of the be necessary potable water
vegetative to address supply by
cover, will be concerns of recharging the
designated as a public health or potable water
Reclaimed Water
recharge environmental supply aquifer
project protection as with recycled
related to water
variable
characteristics
of the
subsurface or
of the
operations of
the project
Massachusetts • Secondary • pH - weekly or • EPA Class I • Immediate, A groundwater • No wastewater • Refers to
• Filtration daily Reliability permitted monitoring plan is discharges will discharges into
(possibly) • BOD - weekly standards may discharge required and be permitted in aquifer
• Disinfection • Turbidity - be required alternatives must accomplish the Zone I of recharge areas
• pH 6 - 9 continuous • Two are required the following any public as defined by
• BOD - less • Fecal coliform independent for emergency goals: water supply Zone II
than 10 mg/l or - daily or twice and separate situations • Evaluates well defined as boundaries of
30 mg/l per week sources of upgradient the area community
• Turbidity - less • Metals - power (background) encompassing water systems
• Unit
424
than 2 NTU or quarterly groundwater a maximum and

5 NTU • TSS - weekly redundancy quality 400-foot radius groundwater
• Fecal coliform or twice per • Additional • Evaluates the around the discharges that
- median of no week storage performance of wellhead will recharge
detectable • Nitrogen - land use (assuming a reservoirs or
colonies/100 ml once or twice components greater than tributaries to
over per week that are 100,000 gpd reservoirs
continuous, • MS-2 phage - considered withdrawal • New treatment
running 7 day quarterly part of the rate) plants located
sampling • Total treatment • Discharging to in approved
periods, not to culturable process Zone IIs, Zone IIs with
exceed viruses - • Evaluates the defined as the less than a two
14/100 ml or quarterly overall impact entire extent of year
200/100 ml • Variable of the project the aquifer groundwater
• TSS - 5 mg/l or testing on local deposits which travel time to
10 mg/l requirements groundwater could fall within the public
• Total nitrogen - • UV intensity or quality and upgradient water supply
less than chlorine • Acts as an from the well must treat
10 mg/l residual - daily early warning production to the more
Reclaimed Water
• Class I system well’s capture rigorous of the
Groundwater between the zone based on two standards
Permit discharge and the predicted described
Standards sensitive drawdown • Existing
(SDWA receptors after 180-day treatment
Drinking Water drought plants that can
Standards) conditions at demonstrate
the approved four or five feet
pumping rate, of separation
will be and where the
permitted in well has not
circumstances shown any
where it is evidence of
necessary to water quality
replenish degradation
streamflow, may maintain
enhance the the lesser
productivity standard
and capacity of
425
an aquifer
and/or improve
upon or
mitigate poor
existing
environmental
conditions
Washington Nonpotable • Point of • Warning • Storage • Will be • Reclaimed • Defined as
aquifer recharge: compliance is alarms required when required and water direct recharge
• Class A - the point of independent of no approved based on withdrawn for to nonpotable
oxidized, direct recharge normal power alternative reclaimed nonpotable or potable
coagulated, of reclaimed supply disposal water quality purposes can groundwater
filtered and water into the • Back-up power system exists and quantity, be withdrawn aquifers
disinfected underground source • Storage site-specific at any distance • Reclaimed
• Total coliform • BOD – 24- • Emergency volume soil and from the point water
- 2.2/100 ml hour storage: established by hydrogeologic of direct withdrawn for
(7-day median) composite short-term, determining characteristics recharge nonpotable
- 23/100 ml samples 1 day; storage period and other • The minimum purposes can
(single sample) collected at long-term, required for considerations horizontal be withdrawn
Reclaimed Water
• 5 mg/l BOD least daily 20 days duration of a Nonpotable separation at any time
and TSS • TSS – 24-hour • Multiple 10-year storm, aquifer recharge: distance after direct
(7-day mean) composite treatment units using a • Monitoring between the recharge
• Turbidity samples or storage or minimum of 20 wells shall be point of direct • Reclaimed
- 2 NTU collected at disposal years of established on recharge and water shall be
(monthly mean) least daily options climatic data a case-by-case withdrawal as retained
- 5 NTU • Total coliform - • Qualified • At a minimum, basis a source of underground
(single sample) grab samples personnel system storage • Constituents to drinking water for a minimum
• Minimum collected at available or on capacity be sampled supply shall be of 12 months
chlorine least daily and call at all times should be the shall be 2,000 feet prior to being
residual of at a time when the system is volume equal determined on withdrawn as a
1 mg/l after a wastewater operating to 3 times that a case-by-case source of
contact time of characteristics portion of the basis drinking water
30 minutes are most average daily • Samples from supply
based on peak demanding on flow for which monitoring • Project
hourly flow the treatment no alternative wells and their evaluation
• A chlorine facilities and reuse or sampling based on all
residual of at disinfection disposal frequency shall relevant
least 0.5 mg/l to procedures system is be determined aspects of
• Continuous
426
be maintained permitted on a case-by- each project,

in the reclaimed on-line case basis including
water during monitoring of Potable aquifer treatment and
conveyance to turbidity and recharge: treatment
the point of chlorine • Monitoring reliability
recharge residual wells, at a provided,
Potable aquifer Additional minimum, shall reclaimed
recharge: monitoring be located at water quality
• Oxidized, requirements for points 500 feet and quantity,
coagulated, potable aquifer and 1,000 feet use or
filtered, recharge: (plus or minus potential use of
reverse- • TOC - 24-hour 10%) along the groundwater,
osmosis treated composite groundwater operation and
and disinfected samples flow path from management
• Total coliform collected at the point of of the recharge
- 1/100 ml least daily recharge to the facilities, soil
(7-day median) • Primary nearest point characteristics,
- 5/100 ml contaminants of withdrawal hydrogeology,
(single sample) (except total of groundwater residence time
Reclaimed Water
• 5 mg/l BOD coliform used as a of the
and TSS organisms), source of reclaimed
(7 day mean) secondary drinking water water in the
• Turbidity contaminants, supply underground
- 0.1 NTU radionuclides, • Groundwater prior to
(monthly mean) and shall be withdrawal and
- 0.5 NTU carcinogens - sampled for distance from
(maximum) 24-hour TOC and the recharge
• Total nitrogen composite primary area to nearest
- 10 mg/l as N samples contaminants, point of
(annual mean) collected at secondary withdrawal
• TOC least quarterly contaminants, • A pilot plant
- 1.0 mg/l • Total nitrogen radionuclides, study shall be
(monthly mean) - grab or and performed
• Water quality 24-hour carcinogens prior to
criteria for composite listed in Table implementation
primary samples 1 in chapter of direct
contaminants collected at 173-200 WAC recharge into a
(except nitrate), least weekly • Samples from potable
427
secondary monitoring groundwater

contaminants, wells shall be aquifer
radionuclides collected at
and least quarterly
carcinogens
listed in Table 1
in chapter 173-
200 WAC and
any other
maximum
contaminant
levels pursuant
to chapter 246-
290 WAC must
be met
• Minimum
chlorine
residual of
1 mg/l after a
Reclaimed Water
contact time of
30 minutes
based on peak
hourly flow
• A chlorine
residual of at
least 0.5 mg/l to
be maintained
in the reclaimed
water during
conveyance to
the point of
recharge
428
Table A-10. Indirect Potable Reuse
Reclaimed Water
California • Determined on • • • • •
a case-by-case
basis
• Based on all
relevant
aspects of each
project,
including the
following
factors:
treatment
provided;
effluent quality
and quantity;
spreading area
operations; soil
characteristics;
hydrogeology;
residence time
429
and distance to
withdrawal
Florida Discharge to • Continuous • Class I • System • Reasonable • Required • Outfalls for • Involves the
Class I surface on-line reliability - storage not assurances • 1 upgradient surface water planned use of
waters and to monitoring for requires required must be well located as discharges not reclaimed
water contiguous turbidity before multiple or • If system provided that close as to be located water to
to or tributary to application of backup storage is the hydraulic possible to the within 500 feet augment Class
Class I waters the disinfectant treatment units provided, at a loading rates site without of existing or F-1, G-1, or
(less than 4 hours • Continuous and a minimum, used in the being affected approved G-II
travel time): monitoring for secondary system storage design must by the site’s potable water groundwaters
• Secondary chlorine power source capacity shall enable the discharge intakes within identified for
treatment with residual or for • For treatment be the volume system to (background Class I surface potable water
filtration and residual facilities equal to 3 comply with well) waters use and
high-level concentrations required to times the the • 1 well at the • Zones of defined as
disinfection of other provide full portion of the requirements edge of the discharge not groundwater
• Chemical feed disinfectants treatment and average daily while meeting zone of to extend recharge in
facilities to be • Treatment disinfection - flow for which applicable discharge closer than regulations
provided facilities minimum reject no alternative surface water down-gradient 500 feet to a • Types of
• 5 mg/l TSS designed to storage reuse or and of the site potable water groundwater
Reclaimed Water
(single sample) meet the full capacity equal disposal groundwater (compliance supply well recharge
to be achieved treatment and to 3 day’s flow system is quality well) • 1,000 foot systems
prior to disinfection at the average permitted standards • 1 well setback include
disinfection requirements daily permitted • Water balance • A groundwater downgradient distance from injection of
• Total nitrogen to sample for flow of the required with mounding from the site injection well reclaimed
- 10 mg/l TOC and total treatment plant volume of analysis is to and within the used for water into
(maximum organic or the average storage based be included in zone of salinity barrier Class F-1, G-1,
annual halogen daily, daily permitted on a 10-year the discharge control to or G-II
average) 7 days per flow of the recurrence engineering (intermediate potable water groundwaters,
• Primary (except week reuse system, interval and a report for well) supply wells specific rapid-
asbestos) and • Total coliforms whichever is minimum of 20 projects • 1 well located Injection rate land
secondary and TSS less years of involving adjacent to facilities: application
drinking water analyzed daily • If full treatment climatic data discharges to unlined • 500 feet to systems, use
standards must if treatment and • Not required if groundwater storage ponds potable water of reclaimed
be met facility is disinfection is alternative and should or lakes supply wells water to create
• pH to fall within required to not required, system is provide • Other wells that are barriers to the
range meet the capacity incorporated reasonable may be existing or landward or
established in bacteriological requirement for into the system assurances required have been upward
secondary requirements reject storage design to that the depending on approved; migration of
430
drinking water of the drinking shall be ensure proposed site-specific Class I surface salt water
standards water reduced to one continuous project will criteria waters; or within Class
• TOC standards day’s flow facility function as • Quarterly Class II F-1, G-1, or
- 3 mg/l • Parameters • Reject storage operation intended and monitoring surface waters G-II
(monthly listed as will not be will not result required for • Setback groundwaters
average) primary required if in excessive water level, distance to and discharge
- 5 mg/l drinking water another mounding of nitrate, total Class I and to surface
(single sample) standards that permitted groundwaters, dissolved Class II waters which
Use of rapid-rate are imposed reuse system increases in solids, arsenic, surface waters are directly
land application as reclaimed or effluent surface water cadmium, reduced to 100 connected to
systems for water limits to disposal elevations, chloride, feet if high- Class F-1, G-I
projects be analyzed system is property chromium, level or G-II
considered reuse monthly capable of damage or lead, fecal disinfection is groundwaters
for groundwater • Parameters discharging interference coliform, pH, provided • Indirect
recharge under listed as the reject with and sulfate • 100 feet to potable reuse
62-610.525: secondary water in reasonable • Monitoring buildings not Involves the
• Secondary drinking water accordance use of property may be part of the planned use of
treatment with standards that with within the required for treatment reclaimed
filtration and are imposed requirements affected area additional facility, utilities water to
Reclaimed Water
high-level as reclaimed • Minimum parameters system or augment
disinfection water limits to system size of based on site- municipal surface water
• Chemical feed be analyzed 0.1 mgd specific operations resources
facilities to be quarterly • Staffing - conditions and • 100 feet to site which are used
provided • pH - daily 24 hrs/day, groundwater property line or will be used
• 5 mg/l TSS • Except for total 7 days/wk for quality • Some setback for public water
(single sample) coliforms and systems distances may supplies and
to be achieved pH, 24-hour required to be reduced if includes
prior to composite provide full certain discharges to
disinfection samples to be treatment and treatment Class I surface
• Total nitrogen used for disinfection requirements waters and
- 10 mg/l parameters - reduced are met and discharges to
(maximum listed as staffing assurances other surface
annual primary or requirement to are provided waters which
average) secondary 6 hrs/day, are directly or
• Primary (except drinking water 7 days/wk may indirectly
asbestos and standards be approved connected to
bacteriological • Unregulated for systems not Class I surface
parameters) organic required to waters
• Public
431
and secondary contaminants provide full

drinking water to be sampled treatment with notification and
standards must annually for diversion of public hearing
be met some types of reclaimed requirements
• pH to fall within projects water to reuse in place for
range • Monitoring for system only projects
established in Giardia and during periods involving
secondary Cryptosporidium of operator surface water
drinking water required presence and discharges and
standards quarterly or other underground
Groundwater one time provisions for injection
recharge by during each 2- increased • Pilot testing is
injection of Class year period reliability required for all
G-1 and F-1 depending on projects that
groundwaters and type of project are required to
Class G-II • Parameters to provide full
groundwaters be monitored treatment and
containing 3000 and sampling disinfection
mg/l or less of frequency to
Reclaimed Water
TDS: be identified in
• Same wastewater
treatment and facility permit
water quality • Minimum
requirements schedule for
as discharge to sampling and
Class I surface testing based
waters except on system
additional capacity
requirement for
total organic
halogen must
be met
• Total organic
halogen (TOX)
- 0.2 mg/l
(monthly
average)
- 0.3 mg/l
432
(single sample
• Alternative
TOC and TOX
limitations may
be approved if
certain
conditions are
met
Groundwater
recharge by
injection of Class
G-II groundwaters
containing greater
than 3000 mg/l of
TDS:
• Same
treatment and
water quality
requirements
Reclaimed Water
as discharge to
Class I surface
waters except
TOC and
secondary
drinking water
requirements
do not apply
• Limitations to
be met before
injection to
groundwater or
discharge to
surface waters
Hawaii • Determined on • Determined on • Multiple or • 20 days • Required • Department of
a case-by-case a case-by-case standby units storage • Groundwater Health
basis basis required of required monitoring evaluation of
• Reclaimed sufficient unless it can system may proposed
water used for capacity to be consist of a groundwater
433
groundwater enable demonstrated number of recharge

recharge by effective that another lysimeters projects and
surface or operation with time period is and/or expansion of
subsurface any one unit adequate or monitoring existing
application out of service that no storage wells projects made
shall be at all • Alarm devices is necessary depending on on an
times of a required for • Storage site size, site individual case
quality that fully loss of power, requirements characteristics, basis where
protects public high water based on location, the use of
health levels, failure water balance method of recycled water
• Projects that of pumps or using at least a discharge, and involves a
are over an blowers, high 30-year record other potential risk to
aquifer head loss on • Reject storage appropriate public health
classified as filters, high required with a considerations • Evaluation
potable, where effluent volume equal • One well based on all
the application turbidity, loss to 1 day of flow upgradient and relevant
rates exceed of coagulant or at the average two wells aspects of
the polymer feed, daily design downgradient each project
consumptive and loss of flow for project sites including
Reclaimed Water
evapotranspira- chlorine • Emergency 500 acres or treatment
tion of the residual system storage more provided,
vegetative • Standby power not required • One well effluent quality
cover, will be source where an within the and quantity,
designated as a required for alternate wetted field effluent or
recharge treatment plant effluent area for each application
project and disposal project whose spreading area
distribution system has surface area is operation, soil
pump stations been approved greater than or characteristics,
equal to 1,500 hydrogeology,
acres residence time,
• One lysimeter and distance to
per 200 acres withdrawal
• One lysimeter • A public
for project sites hearing or a
that have public
greater than 40 referendum is
but less than required for the
200 acres DOH to review
• Additional
434
a request to
lysimeters may augment a
be necessary potable water
to address supply by
concerns of recharging the
public health or potable water
environmental supply aquifer
protection as with recycled
related to water
variable
characteristics
of the
subsurface or
of the
operations of
the project
Massachusetts • Secondary • pH - weekly or • EPA Class I • Immediate, A groundwater • No wastewater • Refers to
• Filtration daily Reliability permitted monitoring plan is discharges will discharges into
(possibly) • BOD - weekly standards may discharge required and be permitted in aquifer
Reclaimed Water
• Disinfection • Turbidity - be required alternatives must accomplish the Zone I of recharge areas
• pH 6 - 9 continuous • Two are required the following any public as defined by
• BOD - less • Fecal coliform independent for emergency goals: water supply Zone II
than 10 mg/l or - daily or twice and separate situations • Evaluates well defined as boundaries of
30 mg/l per week sources of upgradient the area community
• Turbidity - less • Metals - power (background) encompassing water systems
than 2 NTU or quarterly • Unit groundwater a maximum and
5 NTU • TSS - weekly redundancy quality 400-foot radius groundwater
• Fecal coliform or twice per • Additional • Evaluates the around the discharges that
- median of no week storage performance of wellhead will recharge
detectable • Nitrogen - land use (assuming a reservoirs or
colonies/100 ml once or twice components greater than tributaries to
over per week that are 100,000 gpd reservoirs
continuous, • MS-2 phage - considered withdrawal • New treatment
running 7-day quarterly part of the rate) plants located
sampling • Total treatment • Discharging to in approved
periods, not to culturable process Zone IIs, Zone IIs with
exceed viruses - • Evaluates the defined as the less than a 2
14/100 ml or quarterly overall impact entire extent of year
• Variable
435
200/100 ml of the project the aquifer groundwater

• TSS - 5 mg/l or testing on local deposits which travel time to
10 mg/l requirements groundwater could fall within the public
• Total nitrogen - • UV intensity or quality and upgradient water supply
less than chlorine • Acts as an from the well must treat
10 mg/l residual - daily early warning production to the more
• Class I system well’s capture rigorous of the
Groundwater between the zone based on two standards
Permit discharge and the predicted described
Standards sensitive drawdown • Existing
(SDWA receptors after 180-day treatment
Drinking Water drought plants that can
Standards) conditions at demonstrate 4
the approved or 5 feet of
pumping rate, separation and
will be where the well
permitted in has not shown
circumstances any evidence
where it is of water quality
Reclaimed Water
necessary to degradation
replenish may maintain
streamflow, the lesser
enhance the standard
productivity
and capacity of
an aquifer,
and/or improve
upon or
mitigate poor
existing
environmental
conditions
Washington • Oxidized, • Point of • Warning • Storage • Will be • The minimum • Defined as

coagulated, compliance is alarms required when required and horizontal direct recharge
filtered, the point of independent of no approved based on separation to potable
reverse- direct recharge normal power alternative reclaimed distance groundwater
osmosis treated of reclaimed supply disposal water quality between the aquifers
• Back-up power • Reclaimed
436
and disinfected water into the system exists and quantity, point of direct
• Total coliform underground source • Storage site specific recharge and water shall be
- 1/100 ml • BOD – 24- • Emergency volume soil and withdrawal as retained
(7-day median) hour storage: established by hydrogeologic a source of underground
- 5/100 ml composite short-term, determining characteristics drinking water for a minimum
(single sample) samples 1 day; storage period and other supply shall be of 12 months
• 5 mg/l BOD collected at long-term, required for considerations 2,000 feet prior to being
and TSS least daily 20 days duration of a • For direct withdrawn as a
(7-day mean) • TSS - 24 hour • Multiple 10-year storm, recharge into source of
• Turbidity composite treatment units using a potable drinking water
- 0.1 NTU samples or storage or minimum of 20 groundwater supply
(monthly mean) collected at disposal years of aquifers, • Project
- 0.5 NTU least daily options climatic data monitoring evaluation
(maximum) • Total coliform - • Qualified • At a minimum, wells, at a based on all
• Total nitrogen grab samples personnel system storage minimum, shall relevant
- 10 mg/l as N collected at available or on capacity be located at aspects of
(annual mean) least daily and call at all times should be the points 500 feet each project,
• TOC at a time when the system is volume equal and 1,000 feet including
- 1.0 mg/l wastewater operating to 3 times that (plus or minus treatment and
Reclaimed Water
(monthly mean) characteristics portion of the 10 percent) treatment
• Water quality are most average daily along the reliability
criteria for demanding on flow for which groundwater provided,
primary the treatment no alternative flow path from reclaimed
contaminants facilities and reuse or the point of water quality
(except nitrate), disinfection disposal recharge to the and quantity,
secondary procedures system is nearest point use or
contaminants, • Continuous permitted of withdrawal potential use of
radionuclides on-line of groundwater groundwater,
and monitoring of used as a operation and
carcinogens turbidity and source of management
listed in Table 1 chlorine drinking water of the recharge
in Chapter 173- residual supply facilities, soil
200 WAC and • TOC - 24-hour • Groundwater characteristics,
any other composite shall be hydrogeology,
maximum samples sampled for residence time
contaminant collected at TOC and of the
levels pursuant least daily primary reclaimed
to Chapter 246- • Primary contaminants, water in the
437
290 WAC must contaminants secondary underground

be met (except total contaminants, prior to
• Minimum coliform radionuclides, withdrawal and
chlorine organisms), and distance from
residual of secondary carcinogens the recharge
1 mg/l after a contaminants, listed in Table area to nearest
contact time of radionuclides, 1 in Chapter point of
30 minutes and 173-200 WAC withdrawal
based on peak carcinogens - • Samples from • A pilot plant
hourly flow 24-hour monitoring study shall be
• A chlorine composite wells shall be performed
residual of at samples collected at prior to
least 0.5 mg/l to collected at least quarterly implementation
be maintained least quarterly of direct
in the reclaimed • Total nitrogen recharge into a
water during - grab or potable
conveyance to 24-hour groundwater
the point of composite aquifer
recharge samples
Reclaimed Water
collected at
least weekly
438
Appendix B
State Websites
439
Appendix B. State Website Internet Addresses
State Type Agency Rules Website
http://www.adem.state.al.us/
Department of Environmental Guidelines and Minimum Requirements for Municipal,
Alabama Guidelines http://209.192.62.106/
Management Semi-Public and Private Land Treatment Facilities
Land treatment guidelines not found on website
Department of Environmental Alaska Administrative Code, Title 18 - Environmental Conservation, http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/home.htm

Alaska Regulations
Conservation Chapter 72, Article 2, Section 275 - Disposal Systems http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/title18/aac72ndx.htm
Arizona Administrative Code, Title 18 - Environmental Quality,

Department of Environmental http://www.sos.state.az.us/
Arizona Regulations Chapter 11, Article 3 - Reclaimed Water Quality Standards and
Quality http://www.sos.state.az.us/public_services/Table_of_Contents.htm
Chapter 9, Article 7 - Direct Reuse of Reclaimed Water
http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/default.htm
Department of Environmental
Arkansas Guidelines Arkansas Land Application Guidelines for Domestic Wastewater http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/branch_permits/default.htm
Quality
Land application guidelines not found on website
California Department of Health Services http://www.dhs.cahwnet.gov
California Regulations Department of Health Services Regulations and Guideance for Recycled Water (The Purple Book) http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwem/publications/waterrecycling/waterrecyclingindex.htm
California Code of Regulations, Title 17 and 22 http://ccr.oal.ca.gov/
Department of Public Health and Water Quality Control Commission Regulation 84-Reclaimed http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/cdphehom.asp
Colorado Regulations
Environment Domestic Wastewater Control Regulation http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/regs/waterregs/100284.pdf
Connecticut Neither --- http://dep.state.ct.us/
Protection
Department of Natural
http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/
Delaware Regulations Resources and Environmental Guidance and Regulations Governing the Land Treatment of Wastes
http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/water2000/Sections/GroundWat/GWDSRegulations.htm
Control
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/
Department of Environmental Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application
Florida Regulations http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/reuse/index.htm
Protection Florida Administrative Code - Chapter 62-610
http://fac.dos.state.fl.us/
440
Department of Natural Environmental Protection Division http://www.dnr.state.ga.us/dnr/environ/

Georgia Guidelines
Resources Guidelines for Water Reclamation and Urban Water Reuse http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/techguide_files/wpb/reuse.pdf
http://www.state.hi.us/doh/
Hawaii Guidelines Department of Health Guidelines for the Treatment and Use of Recycled Water
http://www.state.hi.us/doh/eh/wwb/reuse-final.pdf
Department of Environmental http://www2.state.id.us/adm/index.htm

Idaho Regulations 58.01.17 Wastewater Land Application Permit Rules
Quality http://www2.state.id.us/adm/adminrules/rules/idapa58/58index.htm
Illinois Administrative Code, Title 35, Subtitle C, Part 372,

Environmental Protection http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/
Illinois Regulations Illinois Design Standards for Slow Rate Land Application of
Agency http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/SLR/IPCBandIEPAEnvironmentalRegulations-Title35.asp
Treated Wastewater
Department of Environmental Indiana Administrative Code, Title 327, Article 6.1-Land Application http://www.in.gov/idem/
Indiana Regulations
Management of Biosolid, Industrial Waste Product, and Pollutant-Bearing Water http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/title327.html
Environmental Protection Division
Department of Natural http://www.state.ia.us/epd/
Iowa Regulations Iowa Wastewater Design Standards, Chapter 21 -
Resources http://www.state.ia.us/epd/wastewtr/design.htm
Land Application of Wastewater
Department of Health and KDHE Administrative Rules and Regulations, 28-16. http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/
Kansas Guidelines
Environment Water Pollution Control http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/regs/
Kentucky Neither --- --- http://kentucky.gov/Default.html
Louisiana Neither --- --- http://www.state.la.us/
Maine Neither --- --- http://www.state.me.us/

Appendix B. State Website Internet Addresses Continued
Department Guidelines for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters http://www.mde.state.md.us/index.asp

Maryland Guidelines
of the Environment Title 26 Department of the Environment http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/subtitle_chapters/26_Chapters.htm
Massachusetts Department of http://www.state.ma.us/dep/dephome.htm
Massachusetts Guidelines Interim Guidelines on Reclaimed Water (Revised)
Environmental Protection http://www.state.ma.us/dep/brp/wwm/t5regs.htm
http://www.michigan.gov/deq
Part 22 Rules of Part 31Groundwater Quality Rules
Department of Environmental http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3313_3682-14902--,00.html
Michigan Regulations Part 22 Guidesheet II Irrigation Management Plan
Quality http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3312_4117-9782--,00.html
Rule 2215 Various Aboveground Disposal Systems
http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-wmd-gwp-Rule2215VariousAboveGroundDisposalSystems-
Minnesota Neither --- --- http://www.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/portal/mn/jsp/home.do?agency=NorthStar

Mississippi Neither --- --- http://www.mississippi.gov/
Department of Natural Code of State Regulations, Title 10, Division 20, http://www.sos.mo.gov/
Missouri Regulations
Resources Chapter 8 - Design Guides http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/current/10csr/10csr.asp
Department of Environmental Design Standards for Wastewater Facilities, Appendix B - http://www.deq.state.mt.us/

Montana Guidelines
Quality Standards for the Spray Irrigation of Wastewater http://www.deq.state.mt.us/wqinfo/Circulars/DEQ2.PDF
Title 119 Chapter 9 Disposal of Sewage Sludge

Department of Environmental and Land Application of Effluent - Regulations
Nebraska Regulations http://www.deq.state.ne.us/
Quality refer to the use of Guidelines for Treated
Wastewater Irrigation Systems, February 1986
Divison of Environmental Protection

Nevada Administrative Code 445A.275 - http://ndep.nv.gov/
Department of Conservation and
Nevada Regulations Use of Treated Effluent for Irrigation http://ndep.nv.gov/nac/445a-226.pdf
Natural Resources
General Design Criteria for Reclaimed http://ndep.nv.gov/bwpc/wts1a.pdf
Water Irrigation Use
441
New Hampshire Neither --- --- http://www.state.nh.us/

New Jersey Guidelines Protection-Division of Water Technical Manual for Reclaimed Water for Beneficial Reuse http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/techman.htm
Quality
http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/
New Mexico Guidelines Environment Department Use of Domestic Wastewater Effluent for Irrigation
Guidelines not found on website
Department of Environmental http://www.dec.state.ny.us/

New York Guidelines State Guidelines for the Use of Land Treatment of Wastewater
Conservation Guidelines not found on website
Department of Environment and Administrative Rules, Title 15A, Chapter 02, Subchapter H, .0200 - http://www.oah.state.nc.us/rules/
North Carolina Regulations
Natural Resources Waste not Discharged to Surface Waters http://ncrules.state.nc.us/ncadministrativ_/title15aenviron_/chapter02enviro_/default.htm
Division of Water Quality

North Dakota Guidelines Department of Health Criteria for Irrigation with Treated Wastewater http://www.health.state.nd.us/wq/
Recommended Criteria for Land Disposal of Effluent
Environmental Protection The Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 860 http://www.epa.state.oh.us/
Ohio Guidelines
Agency Reuse of Reclaimed Wastewater through Irrigation http://ohioline.osu.edu/b860/
Oklahoma Regulations Title 252 Chapter 621 and 656 http://www.deq.state.ok.us/mainlinks/deqrules.htm
Quality
Appendix B. State Website Internet Addresses Continued
Oregon Administrative Rules Use of Reclaimed Water from

Oregon Regulations Sewage Treatment Plants - Division 55 340-055 http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/wqrules/wqrules.htm
Quality
Treatment and Monitoring Requirements for Use of Reclaimed Water
Bureau of Water Quality Protection

Pennsylvania Guidelines Manual for Land Application of Treated Sewage http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/Wqp/WQP_WM/WM_Sewage.htm
Protection
and Industrial Wastewater
Rhode Island Neither --- --- http://www.state.ri.us/
Department of Health and Administrative Code 61 Section 9.505

South Carolina Regulations http://www.lpitr.state.sc.us/coderegs/chap61/61-9.htm
Environmental Control Land Application Permits and State Permits
Chapter XII Recommended Design Criteria for

Disposal of Effluent by Irrigation
Department of Environment and Chapter XIII Recommended Design Criteria for
South Dakota Guidelines http://www.state.sd.us/denr/DES/P&S/designcriteria/designT.html
Natural Resources Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Chapter XVI Recommended Design Criteria for
Artificial Wetland Systems
Department of Environment and

Tennessee Regulations Chapter 16 of Design Criteria for Sewage Works http://www.state.tn.us/environment/
Conservation
Natural Resource Conservation Texas Administrative Code, Title 30 Environmental Quality,

Texas Regulations http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pub/plsql/readtac$ext.viewtac
Commission Part 1, Chapter 210 Use of Reclaimed Water
Utah Regulations Quality Utah Administrative Code, Environmental Quality, R-317-1-4 http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code.htm
442
Division of Water Quality
Agency of Natural Resources Indirect Discharge Rules (for systems >6500 gpd) http://www.anr.state.vt.us/
Vermont Regulations Department of Environmental Wastewater Disposal Systems and Potable Water Supplies http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/ww/indirect.htm#IDRs
Conservation (for systems <6500 gpd) http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/ww/rules/os/Final081602/Subchap5-6-081602.pdf
Virginia Neither http://www.virginia.gov/cmsportal/
Quality
Department of Ecology http://www.ecy.wa.gov/ecyhome.html

Washington Guidelines Department of Health State
Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/97023.html
Title 64 Series 47 Chapter 16-1

West Virginia Regulations Department of Health http://www.wvsos.com/csr/verify.asp?TitleSeries=64-47
Sewage Treatment and Collection System Design Standards
Department of Natural Natural Resources, Chapter NR 206 Land Disposal of http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/

Wisconsin Regulations
Resources Municipal and Domestic Wastewaters www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code
Department of Environmental Wyoming Water Quality Regulations http://soswy.state.wy.us/

Wyoming Regulations
Quality Chapter 21-Reuse of Treated Wastewater http://soswy.state.wy.us/RULES/2804.pdf
EPA/625/R-04/108
September 2004
Guidelines for Water Reuse
Appendix C
Abbreviations and Acronyms
443
Acronyms
AID U.S. Agency for International Development O3 ozone

ANSI American National Standards Institute O&M operations and maintenance
AWT advanced wastewater treatment OM&R operations, maintenance and replacement
AWWA American Water Works Association OWRT Office of Water Research and Technology
BNR biological nutrient removal PAC powder activated carbon

BOD biochemical oxygen demand PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
POTW publicly owned treatment works
CBOD carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand PVC polyvinyl chloride
CFU colony forming units
COD chemical oxygen demand QA/QC quality assurance/quality control
COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CWA Clean Water Act RAS return activated sludge
RBC rotating biological contactor
DO dissolved oxygen RO reverse osmosis
EC electrical conductivity SAR sodium adsorption ratio

EIS environmental impact statement SAT soil aquifer treatment
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency SBA Small Business Administration
ESA external support agency SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
ET evapotranspiration SOC synthetic organic chemical
SRF State Revolving Fund
FC fecal coliform SS suspended solids
FmHA Farmers Home Administration
TCE trichloroethylene
GAC granular activated carbon TDS total dissolved solids
GC/MS gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy THM trihalomethane
TKN total Kjeldahl nitrogen
HPLC high pressure liquid chromatography TN total nitrogen
TOC total organic carbon
IAWPRC International Association on Water TOH total organic hydrocarbons
Pollution Research and Control TOX total organic halides
ICP inductively coupled plasmography TP total phosphorus
I/I infiltration/inflow TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon
IOC inorganic chemicals TSS total suspended solids
IRCWD International Reference Centre for Waste
Disposal UN United Nations
IRWD Irvine Ranch Water District USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
UV ultraviolet
MCL maximum contaminant level
MCLG maximum contaminant level goal VOC volatile organic chemicals
MDL method detection limit
MPN most probable number WAS waste activated sludge
WASH Water and Sanitation for Health
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act WHO World Health Organization
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination WPCF Water Pollution Control Federation
System WRF water reclamation facility
NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulations WWTF wastewater treatment facility
NRC National Research Council
NTU nephelometric turbidity units
444
Abbreviations for Units of Measure
Acre ac liters per second l/s
Acre-foot AF meter m
British thermal unit Btu meters per second m/s
cubic feet per second cfs microgram µg
cubic meter m3 micrograms per liter µg/l

3
cubic meters per day m /d micrometer µm
cubic meters per second m3/s mile mi
Curie Ci mile per hour mph
cycles per second cps milligram mg

o
degrees Celsius C milligrams per liter mg/l
o
degrees Fahrenheit F millilter ml
feet (foot) ft millimeter mm
feet per year ft/yr million gallons per day mgd
Gallon g milliquivalent per liter meq/l

gallons per day gpd minute min
gallons per minute gpm megawatt mW

hectare ha million acre feet per year MAFY
horsepower hp pascal Pa
hour hr plaque forming unit pfu
Inch in pound lb
kilogram kg pounds per square inch psi

kilometer km roentgen R
kiloPascal kPa second S

kilowatt kW square foot ft2
kilowatt hour kWh square inch in2
Liter l square meter m2
liters per capita per day lcd year yr
445
446
Appendix D
Inventory of Reclaimed Water Projects
447
Appendix D: Inventory of Water Reuse Projects
Projects Sponsored by the Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF)
Project Number Project Title
01-CTS-6 Membrane Treatment of Secondary Effluent for Subsequent Use*
D13000 Membrane Bioreactors: Feasibility and Use in Water Reclamation
The Use of Reclaimed Water and Sludge in Food Crop Production

92-HHE-1CO
(Cooperative Effort w/ NRC)
Workshop: On-line Toxicologic Methods for Evaluating Potential Chemical Risk
01-HHE-4
Associated with Potable Reuse (Workshop)
01-HHE-4a Online Methods for Evaluating the Safety of Reclaimed Water*
01-HHE-20T Removal of Endocrine Disrupting Compounds in Water Reclamation Systems*
01-HHE-21T Innovative DNA Array Technology for Detection of Pharmaceutics in Reclaimed Water*
97-IRM-6 Nonpotable Water Reuse Management Practices
00-PUM-1 Water Reuse: Understanding Public Participation and Participation
Reduction of Pathogens, Indicator Bacteria, and Alternative Indicators by

00-PUM-2T
Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Processes*
00-PUM-3 Evaluation of Microbial Risk Assessment Techniques and Applications in Water Reclamation*
94-PUM-1CO Soil Treatability Pilot Studies to Design and Model Soil Aquifer Treatment Systems
99-PUM-4 Impact of Storage on Nonpotable Reclaimed Water: Seasonal and Long Term
92-WRE-1 Water Reuse Assessment
448
Appendix D: Inventory of Water Reuse Projects Continued
Projects Sponsored by the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF)
371 Augmenting Potable Water Supplies With Reclaimed Water
487 Investigation of Soil-Aquifer Treatment for Sustainable Water Reuse
2568 Membrane Treatment of Waste Filter Washwater for Direct Reuse

Understanding Public Concerns and Developing Tools to Assist Local Officials in
2919
Successful Potable Reuse Projects
2968 Protocol for Developing Water Reuse Criteria With Reference to Drinking Water Supplies
Projects Sponsored by the National Water Research Institute (NWRI)
WR-699-531-92 A Comparative Study of UV and Chlorine Disinfection for Wastewater Reclamation
HRA-699-517-94 Microbial Risk Assessment for Reclaimed Water
Projects Sponsored by the WateReuse Foundation
WRF-01-001 Develop Low Cost Analytical Method for Measuring NDMA
WRF-01-002 Removal and/or Destruction of NDMA in Wastewater Treatment Processes
WRF-01-004 Understanding Public Concerns of Indirect Potable Reuse Projects

Characterizing Salinity in Sewer Contributions in Sewer Collection and Reclaimed Water
WRF-01-005
Distribution Systems (AwwaRF Project)
Characterizing Microbial Water Quality in Non-Potable Reclaimed Water Distribution
WRF-01-006
Systems to Optimize End Uses (AwwaRF Project)
The Use of Bioassays and Chemical Measurements to Assess the Removal of Endocrine
WRF-01-007
Disrupting Compounds in Water Reclamation Systems (WERF Project via JWRTF)
Evaluation and Testing of Bioassays for Pharmaceutics in Reclaimed Water
WRF-01-008
(WERF Project via JWRTF)
Rejection of Wastewater-Derived Micropollutants in High-Pressure Membrane Applications
WRF-02-001
Leading to Indirect Potable Reuse: Effects of Membrane and micropollutant Properties
WRF-02-002 Investigation of NDMA Fate and Transport
WRF-02-003 Filter Loading Evaluation for Water Reuse
WRF-02-004 National Database on Water Reuse Projects
WRF-02-005 Develop a National Salinity Management Clearinghouse and Five-year Research Program
WRF-02-006a Zero Liquid Discharge for Water Utility Applications
WRF-02-006b Beneficial and Non-Traditional Uses of Concentrate and Salts
449
Appendix D: Inventory of Water Reuse Projects Continued
Projects Sponsored by the WateReuse Foundation Continued
WRF-02-006c Impacts of Membrane Process Residuals on Wastewater Treatment
WRF-02-006d Benefits of Regional Solutions in Disposing of Concentrate
WRF-02-007 Comparative Study of Recycled Water Irrigation and Fairway Turf
WRF-02-008 Study of Reclaimed, Surface, and Ground-Water Quality
WRF-02-009 Study of Innovative Treatment on Reclaimed Water
WRF-02-011 A Protocol for Developing Water Reuse Criteria with Reference to Drinking Water Supplies
WRF-03-001 Pathogen Removal and Inactivation in Reclamation Plants - Study Design
WRF-03-005 Marketing Strategies for Non-Potable Recycled Water
WRF-03-006 Economic Analysis of Sustainable Water Use - Benefits and Cost
WRF-03-009 Reclaimed Water Aquifer Storage and Recovery: Potential Changes in Water Quality
WRF-03-010 Water Reuse Research Needs Workshop

Two-Day Research Needs Assessment Workshop on Integrating
WRF-03-011
Human Reactions to Water Reuse
WRF-03-012 Salt Management Guide
Rejection of Contaminants of Concern by Nanofiltration and Ultra-low Pressure Reverse
WRF-03-013
Osmosis Membranes for Treating Water of Impaired Quality (AWWARF)
Development of Indicators and Surrogates of Chemical Contaminants and
WRF-03-014
Organic Removal in Wastewater and Water Reuse (Co-funding with WERF)
450

Binder1.PDF-EPA Water Reuse Guidelines

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Binder1.PDF-EPA Water Reuse Guidelines

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

EPA/625/R-04/108

Guidelines for Water Reuse

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Municipal Support Division

Technology Transfer and Support Division

U.S. Agency for International Development

The 2004 Guidelines for Water Reuse examines oppor-

1.1 Objectives of the Guidelines ............................................................................................ 1

1.2 Water Demands and Reuse .............................................................................................. 1

1.3 Source Substitution .......................................................................................................... 2

1.5 Treatment and Water Quality Considerations ................................................................... 3

1.6 Overview of the Guidelines .............................................................................................. 4

1.7 References ....................................................................................................................... 5

2 TYPES OF REUSE APPLICATIONS ......................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Urban Reuse .................................................................................................................... 7

2.1.1 Reclaimed Water Demand ................................................................................... 8

2.1.2 Reliability and Public Health Protection ............................................................... 9

2.1.3 Design Considerations ....................................................................................... 10

2.1.3.1 Water Reclamation Faciliities ............................................................... 10

2.1.3.2 Distribution System .............................................................................. 10

2.1.4. Using Reclaimed Water for Fire Protection ........................................................ 12

2.2 Industrial Reuse ............................................................................................................. 13

2.2.1 Cooling Water .................................................................................................... 13

2.2.1.1 Once-Through Cooling Water Systems ................................................. 13

2.2.1.2 Recirculating Evaporative Cooling Water Systems ............................... 13

2.2.1.3 Cooling Water Quality Requirements .................................................... 15

2.2.2 Boiler Make-up Water ........................................................................................ 16

2.2.3 Industrial Process Water ................................................................................... 17

2.2.3.1 Pulp and Paper Industry ....................................................................... 17

2.2.3.2 Chemical Industry ................................................................................ 17

2.2.3.3 Textile Industry .................................................................................... 17

2.2.3.4 Petroleum and Coal .............................................................................. 20

2.3 Agricultural Reuse .......................................................................................................... 20

2.3.1 Estimating Agricultural Irrigation Demands ........................................................ 21

2.3.1.1 Evapotranspiration ................................................................................ 21

2.3.1.2 Effective Precipitation, Percolation and Surface Water

Runoff Losses ...................................................................................... 21

2.3.2 Reclaimed Water Quality ................................................................................... 22

2.3.2.1 Salinity ................................................................................................. 23

2.3.2.2 Sodium ................................................................................................. 23

2.3.2.3 Trace Elements .................................................................................... 24

2.3.2.4 Chlorine Residual .................................................................................. 24

2.3.2.5 Nutrients ............................................................................................... 24

2.3.3 Other System Considerations ........................................................................... 26

2.3.3.1 System Reliability ................................................................................ 26

2.3.3.2 Site Use Control ................................................................................... 26

2.3.3.3 Monitoring Requirements ...................................................................... 26

2.3.3.4 Runoff Controls .................................................................................... 26

2.3.3.5 Marketing Incentives ............................................................................ 27

2.3.3.6 Irrigation Equipment .............................................................................. 27

2.4 Environmental and Recreational Reuse .......................................................................... 27

2.4.1 Natural and Man-made Wetlands ....................................................................... 28

2.4.2 Recreational and Aesthetic Impoundments ....................................................... 30

2.4.3 Stream Augmentation ........................................................................................ 30

2.5 Groundwater Recharge ................................................................................................... 31

2.5.1 Methods of Groundwater Recharge ................................................................... 32

2.5.1.1 Surface Spreading ................................................................................ 32

2.5.1.2 Soil-Aquifer Treatment Systems .......................................................... 35

2.5.1.3 Vadose Zone Injection .......................................................................... 37

2.5.1.4 Direct Injection ..................................................................................... 38

2.5.2 Fate of Contaminants in Recharge Systems ..................................................... 38

2.5.2.1 Particulate Matter ................................................................................. 39

2.5.2.2 Dissolved Organic Constituents ........................................................... 39